THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S.

COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES

2001-01-0547

Diesel Engine Combustion Chamber Geometry Optimization Using Genetic Algorithms and Multi-Dimensional Spray and Combustion Modeling
D. D. Wickman, P. K. Senecal and R. D. Reitz
Engine Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Reprinted From: Advances in Combustion 2001 (SP1574)

SAE 2001 World Congress Detroit, Michigan March 5-8, 2001

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs 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 Sections 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 2001 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

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

2001-01-0547

Diesel Engine Combustion Chamber Geometry Optimization Using Genetic Algorithms and MultiDimensional Spray and Combustion Modeling
D. D. Wickman, P. K. Senecal, and R. D. Reitz
Engine Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Copyright 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc

ABSTRACT The recently developed KIVA-GA computer code was used in the current study to optimize the combustion chamber geometry of a heavy -duty diesel truck engine and a high-speed direct-injection (HSDI) small-bore diesel engine. KIVA-GA performs engine simulations within the framework of a genetic algorithm (GA) global optimization code. Design fitness was determined using a modified version of the KIVA-3V code, which calculates the spray, combustion, and emissions formation processes. The measure of design fitness includes NOx , unburned HC, and soot emissions, as well as fuel consumption. The simultaneous minimization of these factors was the ultimate goal. The KIVA-GA methodology was used to optimize the engine performance using nine input variables simultaneously. Three chamber geometry related variables were used along with six other variables, which were thought to have significant interaction with the chamber geometry. The input variables include the piston bowl radius, the piston bowl depth, the piston crown height, the start of injection (SOI) timing, the percent of cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), the swirl ratio (SR) at intake valve closure (IVC), the duration of injection (DOI), the fuel injection nozzle hole size, and the angle of a fuel injection plume with respect to the cylinder axis. Both engines were optimized at a medium-speed, high-load condition with a similar global equivalence ratio. The results show impressive reductions in both exhaust emissions and fuel consumption.

INTRODUCTION Recently, much research effort and resources have focused on promising new alternatives to internal combustion (IC) engines (e.g., fuel cells). These advanced concepts have potential as clean and efficient powerplants of the future. However, in the much nearer future, advances in combustion will lead to cleaner and more efficient engines using practical fuels. It is the authors opinion that there is significant room for improvement remaining with IC engines. The current work showcases a newly developed optimization tool for exploring the vast design space being opened up by modern flexible electronically controlled engines. It is well known that the spray characteristics must be well matched with the combustion chamber geometry and air motion to achieve optimal performance in a direct injection (DI) diesel engine. Singal et al. [1] provide a review of the spray-air motion interaction in DI diesels. The improvement of the chamber geometry has been the focus of many previous studies. In the present paper, a brief review of modern DI diesel chamber designs is given, followed by a review of previous experimental and computational studies on the effect of chamber geometry. The focus of this paper is the optimization of the engine chamber geometry using computer modeling techniques. BACKGROUND Most modern DI diesel designs can be categorized as either an open chamber or a re-entrant chamber design. Most small-bore diesel engines use a small diameter, relatively deep, re-entrant type bowl. The fuel spray is typically aimed at the bowl lip. This design has been used for its high swirl and strong squish flows, which

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

tend to promote sufficient mixing, especially at high engine speeds. Some researchers have found that when modern high-pressure injection systems are used along with sufficiently small bowl throat diameter chambers, liquid impingement occurs on the piston at certain operating conditions. They contend that the traditional small diameter bowl may be inappropriate when used with modern high-pressure injection systems. Larger heavy -duty engines have typically used larger diameter, open-type bowls. These systems rely more on the fuel spray than the air motion to provide the mixing energy required. These engines generally operate at lower speeds, where the mixing rate required for complete combustion is lower. The orientation of the fuel spray varies from engine to engine. Some aim the fuel spray along the bottom surface of the bowl, others direct the fuel towards the squish region. Middlemiss [2] performed an extensive experimental study on the effect of chamber geometry in a small-bore high-speed diesel engine. Many different designs were tried. The designs included a baseline, open-type chamber with a small center crown and a host of re-entrant designs, where the throat diameter and angle of the re-entrant portion of the bowl were varied. One of the re-entrant designs included a center crown. Four bowl lip designs were tried along with a variety of compression ratios in a parametric study. In general, it was found that re-entrant chambers resulted in higher mixing rates thereby allowing retarded injection timings and higher speed operation. This resulted in low soot and NOx emissions with no degradation in fuel economy. Saito et al. [3] performed an experimental study of bowl geometry in a small-bore diesel engine. Two open-type chambers were tried, one shallow and one deep. A re-entrant chamber was also tried, with equal maximum bowl diameter to the open chambers. The throat diameter of the re-entrant bowls was varied. It was found that a 40 mm throat diameter was optimal. They found that the re-entrant chamber produced shorter ignition delays, lower fuel consumption, and lower soot and NOx emissions when used with retarded injection timings. Sakata et al. [4] performed a combined experimental and computational study of piston bowl design in a small-bore diesel engine. They found that a specially designed bump (so-called reflex edge) on the re-entrant portion of the bowl increased fuel spray air entrainment and mixing. This resulted in increased performance and reduced hydrocarbon (HC) emissions. An experimental study of the effects of the spray orientation, injector hole size and number, compression ratio, and combustion chamber geometry was carried out by Corcione et al. [5]. They used a small-bore aircooled DI diesel. Two bowl shapes were tried, a parallel sided open chamber (so-called toroidal) and a re-entrant

chamber. In general, it was found that the toroidal chamber performed better at low engine speeds and the re-entrant bowl was better at high speeds. Zhang et al. [6] performed an experimental study on the effect of chamber geometries on combustion behavior. Three geometries were investigated, a rightcircular-cylinder dish type open bowl, a flat bottom reentrant bowl, and the re-entrant bowl with a pronounced center crown. They concluded that the re-entrant bowl with the center crown resulted in the fastest combustion. They also found it was important to achieve a good fuel/flame distribution inside and outside the bowl to reduce soot emissions. Zolver et al. [7] performed a computational study on piston bowl shapes in a small-bore diesel engine. Injection characteristics were found to have a firstorder control of the combustion process, followed by the piston bowl shape. It was found that the intake stroke is important to generate a good mean velocity pattern at BDC, both in terms of its magnitude and structure. For a given internal geometry, the flow field controls the turbulence and its dissipation rate at the end of compression. The bowl design and volume balance (between the bowl and squish regions) were found to play an important role in defining the flow near TDC. Raising the swirl level and turbulence or destroying swirl to create turbulence were found to be productive approaches. NOx emissions were reduced through chamber-geometry-generated turbulence. An interesting configuration with individual pockets for each spray plume was investigated, with favorable results. De Risi et al. [8] performed a combined experimental and computational study on the effects of chamber geometry and engine speed on emissions in a small-bore diesel. The basic chamber shape investigated was a Mexican hat-type bowl. Five different variations of this shape were tried, one of which was an open-type bowl. They also tried a bowl with a reflex edge, similar to that of Sakata et al. [4]. They found the effect of bowl geometry more prevalent at low engine speeds. At higher engine speeds a smoother bowl lip resulted in lower soot and higher NOx. The highly reentrant bowl was found to have performance more independent of engine speed, however the spray angle and injection timing became more critical. The best results were found when aiming the fuel spray at the bottom of the bowl. Bianchi et al. [9] performed a computational study on the use of a larger diameter, less re-entrant bowl configuration along w high pressure common rail ith fuel injection and low swirl in a small-bore diesel engine. The concept was to use a bowl design more well suited to the modern injection system, thereby eliminating spray-wall impingement and the need for high swirl. This would increase the volumetric efficiency and possibly allow for simultaneous reductions in exhaust

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

emissions and fuel consumption. The spray angle and number of injector holes was also changed. It was found that the high-pressure common rail injection system provided sufficient mixing without a highly re-entrant bowl and high swirl. They were able to reduce soot and NOx emissions, while paying only a small indicated mean effective pressure (imep) penalty. Boulouchos [10] outlined possible future strategies for combustion, which included homogeneous charge external ignition (HCEI), stratified charge external ignition (SCEI), stratified charge compression ignition (SCCI), and homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI). The present paper focuses on the o ptimization of traditional diesel combustion (so-called SCCI). Ultimately, clean and efficient SCCI combustion may be achieved when operation takes place within the elusive window described by Boulouchos [10], where mixing takes place fast enough to avoid stagnant sootproducing fuel rich zones and hot burned gases are quenched to global temperatures on time scales shorter than those required for significant NOx production. SCOPE OF PRESENT STUDY The current work demonstrates the use of the newly developed design methodology of Senecal and Reitz [11, 12] (KIVA-GA). KIVA-GA performs engine simulations (using the KIVA code) within the framework of a genetic algorithm (GA) global optimization code. Genetic algorithms can be used as an efficient method of optimization in a large search space. Senecal and Reitz successfully demonstrated the use of a GA in optimization of a heavy -duty diesel engine with split injection capability. In their study, boost, % EGR, injection duration, injection timing, % mass in the first injection pulse, and the dwell between injection pulses were allowed to vary within a predefined range. The results showed soot emissions at half the baseline level, NOx emissions at one-third of the baseline, and a 15% reduction in fuel consumption. The goal of the current study is the same as that of the work of Senecal and Reitz [11, 12] i.e., the reduction of emissions and fuel consumption, subject to certain predefined constraints. However, the parameters varied are different. In total 9 parameters were used, 3 geometric and 6 other parameters with significant interaction. The 3 parameters related to chamber geometry are the bowl diameter, the bowl depth (as a % of the maximum bowl depth), and the central crown height of the piston (as a % of the bowl depth). Chamber geometry optimization seems to be an excellent application for KIVA-GA, since an extensive experimental study would require many different pistons to be manufactured. In this study, only open-type Mexican hat shaped chambers were considered.

Figure 1 shows examples of possible chamber shapes within the search space and the three geometric parameters varied. Grid generation was automated, using the program PKSgrid. The squish height is adjusted automatically in each case to preserve the compression ratio. The 6 other parameters are the injection duration, the injector hole size (as a % of the maximum hole size), the injection angle (with respect to the cylinder axis), the start of injection timing (SOI), the swirl ratio (SR), and the % of cooled exhaust gas recirculated (EGR). Table 1 lists these parameters, the ranges through which they were allowed to vary, and the resolution of each parameter (# of steps allowed within each parameter). Using these parameters and resolutions results in a search space containing about 10 7x10 possible designs. The hole size is given as % of maximum hole size, which is a function of injection duration, such that the injection pressure ranges from approximately 1000 to 2000 bar.

Figure 1. Examples of chamber geometries within the search space. The present geometric parameters included in the optimization studies are illustrated.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

Table 1. Design parameters, ranges, and resolutions. Parameter bowl diam. 2 bowl depth crown height DOI hole size frac injection angle SOI swirl ratio EGR Range 37 cm (small-bore) 511.7 cm (large-bore) 5090 % max. 2090 % max. 12.9528 deg. 0100 % max. 2080 deg. -155 deg. atdc 04 050 % Resolution 16 16 16 16 16 32 16 8 16

Reitz [13]). Engine specifications are given in Table 2. The heavy -duty diesel considered is a single cylinder version of the 3400 series Caterpillar diesel (Montgomery [14]). Engine specifications are given in Table 3. Note that, with the exception of bowl diameter, all parameters and resolutions are identical for the large and small-bore engines (see Table 1). However, the minimum and maximum bowl diameters used for the two engines represent 35% and 85% of their respective bore sizes. Table 2. Small-bore Automotive Engine Specifications. Engine Type Bore x Stroke Compression Ratio Displacement Piston Geometry Intake Ports Spray included half angle (deg.) Swirl ratio (at IVC) Boost pressure (bar) Bowl dia. 2 (mm) Bowl depth frac Crown height frac DOI (deg.) Hole size frac EGR IVO IVC EVO EVC 4 valve DI diesel 82.0 x 90.4 mm 18.79:1 3 477 cm reentrant bowl 1 swirl, 1 tumble 72.5 1.83 1.96 46 1.0 0.07 18.3 1.0 (0.160 mm) 0% 10 BTDC 38 ABDC 38 BBDC 8.5 ATDC

The actual hole size used in the simulation is calculated from the hole size fraction by

diameter =
where

4 * Anoz

(1)

Anoz = [ frac * ( A max A min )] + A min

C1 * mass _ inj num _ holes * fuel * V min* Tinj C1 * mass _ inj num _ holes * fuel *V max* Tinj

(2)

A max =

(3)

A min =

(4)

and frac is the nozzle hole fraction taken from the GA code. Num_holes is the number of holes per nozzle. Vmin and Vmax are the minimum and maximum injection velocities, respectively, based on the range of injection pressure used. Tinj is the time duration of injection. C1 is a constant that accounts for the deviation from a square rate shape of injection, which is assumed in equations 1-4. This method allows the injection duration to vary, independent of the injection pressure. The bowl depth is calculated from the bowl depth fraction by

Table 3. Heavy -duty Engine Specifications. Engine Type Bore x Stroke Compression Ratio Displacement Piston Geometry Combustion Chamber Spray included half angle (deg.) Swirl ratio (at IVC) Boost pressure (bar) Bowl dia. 2 (mm) Bowl depth frac Crown height frac DOI (deg.) Hole size frac EGR IVO IVC EVO EVC 4 valve DI diesel 137.2 x 165.1 mm 16.1:1 3 2440 cm Mexican Hat Quiescent 62.5 1.0 1.62 98 0.9 0.22 21 0.4 (0.188 mm) 0% 32 BTDC 33 ABDC 46 BBDC 29 ATDC

Vol bowl _ depth = frac * tdc 2 *

(5)

where frac is the bowl depth fraction, Voltdc is the volume at TDC, and is the bowl radius. A small-bore direct injection diesel engine and a heavy-duty direct injection diesel engine are considered in the current study. The small-bore diesel is a single cylinder version of a Fiat automotive diesel (Corgard and

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

For both engines an operating condition was chosen that had experimental data available for baseline validation. For the small-bore diesel the operating condition is 1757 rev/min and full load. This operating condition has a global equivalence ratio of about 0.72. For the heavy -duty engine the operating condition is 993 rev/min and 75% load. This operating condition results in a similar overall equivalence ratio of about 0.77. These operating conditions were chosen since they are both high load, near the middle of their respective engines speed range (near the torque peak), and have similar global equivalence ratios. This allows for a meaningful comparison of results between the 2 engine sizes. It is important to note that the optimization is only at this load and speed and that other loads and speeds may have different optimums. In the future, as computer speeds increase, more than one operating condition will be considered for each function evaluation (i.e., more than one KIVA-GA run), with appropriate weighting given to each condition. NUMERICAL MODELS CFD CODE - The multi-dimensional model used in the present study is a modified version of the KIVA-3V computer code [15]. KIVA3V solves for unsteady, compressible, turbulentreacting flows on finitevolume grids. With the addition and modification of many submodels, this code is now being widely applied and validated for engine combustion simulations [16]. These models have been adequately described in the literature and are only briefly described here. Turbulent flow within the combustion chamber is modeled using the RNG k model, modified for variabledensity engine flows [17], and an improved temperature wall function model is used to predict gas/wall convective heat transfer. This model accounts for the effect of thermodynamic variations of gas density and the increase of the turbulent Prandtl number in the boundary layer [18]. The nozzle flow model of Sarre et al. [19] was implemented to provide initial conditions for the spray model. The model takes into account the nozzle passage inlet configuration, flow losses and cavitation, the injection pressure and instantaneous combustion chamber conditions [19]. The injector discharge coefficient, effective injection velocity and injected liquid blob sizes at the injector exit are calculated dynamically throughout the entire injection event. The KHRT (KelvinHelmholtz and Rayleigh Taylor) model is used to model the spray breakup. This model assumes that aerodynamic instabilities (i.e., KH waves) are responsible for liquid breakup within the dense core region, and that both aerodynamic and RT accelerative instabilities form droplets beyond a breakup length defined by

L =C

1 d0 2

(6)

where 1 and 2 are the liquid and gas densities, respectively, and d0 is the diameter of the injected liquid blob. Furthermore, C is a model constant, which can be shown to be related to the KH model breakup time constant [16]. The spray model also considers the effects of drop distortion on the drag coefficient of the drops. The drops drag coefficient is allowed to change dynamically between that of a sphere (in the case of no distortion) and that of a disk (in the case of maximum distortion) depending on the conditions surrounding the drop. Details of this and other models are described by Rutland et al. [20]. To model diesel engine ignition delay, a multistep kinetics model (Shell model) is used. In the Shell model [21], eight generic reactions are used to represent fuel, intermediate species, and products. The premise of the Shell model is that degenerate branching plays an important role in determining the cool flame and the twostage ignition phenomena that are observed during the autoignition of hydrocarbon fuels. A chain propagation cycle is formulated to describe the history of the branching agent together with one initiation and two termination reactions [22]. Diesel spray combustion is modeled with a characteristic time model, which is explained in detail by Kong et al. [22]. Soot formation is computed with the model of Hiroyasu and Kadota [23] and soot oxidation is determined with the Nagle and StricklandConstable model [24]. In addition, NOx is modeled with the extended Zeldovich mechanism [25]. A detailed description of the implementation of these models is presented by Patterson et al. [26]. The one-dimensional gas dynamics code of Zhu and Reitz [27] was used to model the gas exchange processes and provide the initial (IVC) conditions for the multi-dimensional code. OPTIMIZATION - Although a multidimensional CFD model provides a tool for simulating both conventional and unconventional engine design concepts (e.g., [28], [29]), an efficient design process must be based on a mathematical or statistical scheme which searches a constraintlimited objective function surface for an optimum [30]. In this context, the CFD model becomes a function evaluator that calculates the objective function f(X) to be optimized. Thus, if X is the vector of parameters, or control factors, to be varied (e.g., injection and/or geometric parameters), the present optimization problem can be stated as:

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

For an objective function f(X), find X=(X1,X2,X3,...,Xk ) which maximizes f(X) subject to possible constraints on the system. Affes et al. [31] developed a methodology for IC engine intake port design utilizing CFD calculations and a numerical calculusbased, or local, optimization technique. Local search techniques are typically highly dependent on the initial design point and tend to be tightly coupled to the solution domain. This tight coupling enables such methods to take advantage of solution space characteristics, resulting in relatively fast convergence to a local optimum. However, constraints such as solution continuity and differentiability can restrict the range of problems that can be optimized with such methods. On the other hand, global search methods place few constraints on the solution domain and are thus much more robust for illbehaved solution spaces. In addition, these techniques tend to converge to a global optimum for multimodal functions with many local extrema. Genetic algorithms are global search techniques based on the mechanics of natural selection which combine a survival of the fittest approach with some randomization and/or mutation. The Simple Genetic Algorithm (SGA) can be summarized as follows [32]: Individuals are generated through random selection of the parameter space for each control factor, and a population is then produced from the set of individuals. A model (which may be empirical or multi dimensional) is used to evaluate the fitness of each individual. The fittest individuals are allowed to reproduce, resulting in a new generation through combining the characteristics from two sets of individuals. Mutations are also allowed through random changes to a small portion of the population. The fitness criteria thins out the population by killing off less suitable solutions. The characteristics of the individuals tend to converge to the most fit solution over successive generations.

consumption and combustion noise to control factors such as boost pressure, swirl ratio and injection pressure were assessed over a wide range of engine operating conditions. While previous studies (e.g., [35]) used Genetic Algorithms to optimize empirical models constructed from experimental results, the present study uses a MicroGenetic Algorithm (GA) to automatically determine what designs to simulate and hence drive the numerical experiments to the optimum. Like the SGA outlined above, the GA operates on a family, or population, of designs. However unlike the SGA, the mechanics of the GA allow for a very small population size, npop. For SGAs, npop typically ranges from 30 to 200, while the GA of Krishnakumar [36] uses a population size of five. As a result, a GA is a much more feasible tool for use with multidimensional modeling. The GA used in the present study is based on the GA code of Carroll [37] and can be outlined as follows: 1. A population of five designs is generated four are determined randomly and one is the present baseline design. The fitness of each design is determined and the fittest individual is carried to the next generation (elitist strategy). The parents of the remaining four individuals are determined using a tournament selection strategy. In this strategy, designs are paired randomly and adjacent pairs compete to become parents of the remaining four individuals in the following generation [15]. Convergence of the population is checked. If the population is converged, go to step 1 keeping the current fittest individual as the new baseline. If the population has not converged, go to step 2.

2.

3.

4.

Note that mutations are not applied in the GA since enough diversity is introduced after convergence of a population. In addition, Krishnakumar [36] and Carroll [37] have shown that GAs reach the optimum in fewer function evaluations compared to an SGA for their test functions. OPTIMIZATION METHODOLOGY This section summarizes the key elements incorporated in the present design methodology including the baseline design, constraints, the objective function and its evaluation, and the search technique.

Genetic algorithms have been successfully applied to design problems ranging from laser systems [33] to reinforced concrete beams [34] and have also been used for engine design. Edwards et al. [35] constructed statistical models from a set of factorial experiments and used a genetic algorithm to optimize these models. With this methodology, the responses of emissions, fuel

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

BASELINE DESIGNS - The baseline combustion chamber geometry for the small-bore engine is shown in Fig. 2. The baseline design is a re-entrant type bowl with a pronounced center crown. For computational efficiency, a sixty-degree sector of the combustion chamber was modeled. This is afforded by the six-fold symmetry inherent with the six-hole fuel injection nozzle and axi-symetric chamber geometry. A baseline simulation was performed and compared to the experimental data of Corgard and Reitz [13]. As seen in Figure 3, there is good agreement between the computed and measured cylinder pressure. The automated mesh generation program used in the current study was not designed to consider such a complicated geometry. Therefore, a baseline Mexicanhat geometry starting point for the optimization was configured to match as close as possible the actual engines bowl radius and crown height.

The baseline combustion chamber geometry for the heavy -duty engine is shown in figure 4. The baseline design is an open-type chamber featuring a Mexican-hat shape. Again, a baseline simulation was performed and compared to experimental measurements (Montgomery and Reitz [14, 30]). Figure 5 shows the computed and measured cylinder pressure, with good agreement between the two. The successful comparisons shown here, along with previous results (not shown, Senecal and Reitz [11, 12]) provide confidence in the model predictions.

Figure 4. Heavy -duty computational mesh.

12

diesel

engine

baseline

10

Measured Predicted

Pressure (MPa)

Figure 2. Small-bore diesel engine computational mesh used for model validation.
14

baseline

0 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

12

Measured Predicted

crank angle (deg. atdc)

10

Pressure (MPa)

Figure 5. Comparison of computed and measured cylinder pressure for the heavy -duty diesel baseline case. OBJECTIVE FUNCTION AND ITS EVALUATION Since the goal of the present optimization process is to reduce emissions without sacrificing fuel economy, the objective, or merit, function should contain engineout NOx, Hydrocarbon (HC) and soot emissions levels, as well as fuel consumption. In this study, the proposed merit function of Montgomery and Reitz [14, 30], which has a lso been used by Senecal and Reitz [11, 12], is used and is given by

0 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

crank angle (deg. ATDC)

Figure 3. Comparison of computed and measured cylinder pressure for the small-bore diesel baseline geometry shown in Figure 2.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

f ( X) =
where

1000 R + R22 + R3
2 1

(7)

cylinder pressure at exhaust valve opening (EVO) to the exhaust manifold pressure, assuming a (ratio of specific heats) of 1.2. SEARCH TECHNIQUE - The final, and perhaps most important, element of the KIVAGA methodology is the GA optimization technique described above. The KIVAGA code is completely automated to simulate a GA generation (i.e., five designs) in parallel. Once the five simulations are completed, the genetic operators produce a new population and the process is repeated. In this study 80 generations were run (i.e., 400 KIVA simulations). Representative run times were 2 weeks -4 on an SGI Origin 2000 supercomputer. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

R1 =

NOx +HC W1 (NOx + HC )0 R2 = PM W2 PM 0

BSFC BSFC 0

(8)

(9)

R3 =

(10)

and the parameter vector X is defined in Table 1. For the small-bore engine the (NOx + HC)o and PMo values are 6.015 and 1.481 g/kg-fuel, respectively. These fuel specific emissions targets were derived from the EPA tier II 2004 automotive diesel mandates (Krieger et al. [38]) using the vehicle road power requirements of Stodolsky et al. [39] and an assumption of 40% brake thermal engine efficiency (approximately 60 miles/gallon diesel fuel). The baseline fuel consumption BSFCo is taken as 210 g/kW-hr (i.e., 40% brake thermal efficiency). NO emissions were used in the small-bore optimization. For the heavy -duty engine, the (NOx + HC)o and PMo values are the EPA mandated on-highway emissions levels (3.35 and 0.13 g/kWhr, respectively) for 2002/2004 and BSFC0 is a baseline fuel consumption (215 g/kWhr in the present work, obtained form the experiments of Montgomery [14]). The weighting constants W 1 and W 2 are set to 1.0 in the present study for both engines. Note that hydrocarbon emissions are determined from the predicted amount of unburned fuel at the end of each simulation. The brake power in each case was calculated using the calculated gross indicated power and subtracting a baseline pumping and frictional power. No correction to the frictional power was made for changes in the imep. CONSTRAINTS - As described by Montgomery [14], physical constraints on the heavy -duty engine include a maximum exhaust temperature of 1023 K and a peak combustion pressure of approximately 15 MPa. The penalty method technique of Senecal [11,12] is used to inhibit convergence to an unphysical solution (i.e., one that violates the present constraints). The maximum cylinder pressure limit is taken as 14 MPa for the smallbore engine. The small-bore exhaust temperature limit was set equal to that of the heavy -duty engine (i.e., 1023 K). The exhaust temperature change during blow-down was estimated by an isentropic expansion from the

The results from the small-bore optimization are presented first, followed by the large-bore, and finally a comparison of results between the two engine sizes is presented. SMALL-BORE OPTIMIZATION- Figure 6 presents the maximum merit function curve for the small-bore engine. This curve shows the maximum merit value of each successive generation. As seen in the figure, the optimum design at generation eighty has a significantly higher merit value when compared to the optimization starting point. Notice that the predicted optimum did not change between generations 50 and 80, indicating convergence. However, convergence is not guaranteed, since the true global optimum is not known a priori. Figure 6 also presents the chamber geometries and spray included angles corresponding to major merit value changes. It is interesting to note the evolution of the chamber geometry through the optimization process, which started with a small diameter deep bowl, moved to a Mexican hat type geometry, and finally arrived at a more toroidal like geometry with a low center piston crown. It is important to note that many other geometries were included in the optimization process and only goemetries associated with maximum merit changes are shown here. The spray orientation angle of the optimum case is shown in Table 4, along with the values of all parameters for the optimum designs for both engines. As shown in Figure 6, this spray angle directs the fuel towards the far bottom corner of the bowl. Figure 7 presents the best design of each generation for six of the parameters, along with the maximum merit curve, for reference. Figure 7 a, b, c, d, e, and f show the bowl diameter, bowl depth fraction, piston crown fraction, injection duration, start of injection timing, and spray included half-angle, respectively. The bowl diameter was initially small, to best match the

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

baseline engine geometry. It then moved to a large bowl diameter, dipped back to a slightly smaller diameter, then finished with a relatively large diameter. The bowl depth fraction moved to a large value early in the optimization and stayed large to the end. Interestingly, the piston crown fraction started low (high center piston crown height) and m oved to a large value (low center crown height) between generations 30 and 40. The convergence to a relatively large diameter shallow bowl shape is an indication that the high injection pressure is sufficient for good mixing and does not require strong swirl and squish flows. However, it is important to note that this is a medium speed operating condition and at high engine speed more air motion may be required for clean and efficient combustion. Up to about generation 50 the injection duration was shorter than that of the baseline case, however the injection duration then moved to a larger value (longer injection duration) where it remained until the end of the

optimization. The spray orientation angle progressively moved from smaller to larger values, i.e., moving towards spraying into the squish volume. Figure 8 presents the best design of each generation for the remaining three parameters, along with the maximum merit curve, for reference. Figure 8 a, b, and c shows swirl ratio, EGR fraction, and nozzle hole diameter, respectively. The swirl ratio was initialized at approximately 1.8, dipped to 0.0, and converged to 1.1. The reduced swirl, when compared to the baseline, is an indication of a reduced reliance on air motion for mixing. This can be attributed to the higher injection velocity, as well as the larger bowl diameter, which has less swirl intensification near TDC. The EGR fraction, which was initially 0.0 (from the baseline case), converged to 0.23. The nozzle hole diameter, initially 0.16 mm, converged to 0.11 mm. The final (converged) values for all nine parameters are shown in Table 4.

500

450

Maximum merit value

400

350

300

250

200

150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Generation number
Figure 6: Maximum merit function curve for the small-bore engine optimization study. Also shown are the chamber geometries corresponding to the major merit value changes.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

7.0 6.5 6.0 Bowl diameter (cm) 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number

500 450 400

Bowl depth fraction

1.0

500 450

0.9

400 350 Maximum merit value

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 80

Maximum merit value

0.8

300 250

0.7

200 150

0.6

100 50

0.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number

0 80

(a)
0.9 0.8 Piston crown fraction 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number 500 450
Injection duration (CA deg.) 28 26 24

(b)
500 450 400 350 22 20 18 16 100 14 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number 50 0 80 300 250 200 150 Maximum merit value

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 80 Maximum merit value

(c)
6 Start of injection timing (CA deg. ATDC) 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 80 Maximum merit value Spray included half-angle (deg.) 70 60 50 40 30 20 0 10 20 30 80

(d)
500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 40 50 60 70 0 80 Maximum merit value

Generation number

(e)

(f)

Figure 7: Merit and parameter values for the best design of each generation of the small-bore optimization study. Shown here are (a) bowl diameter, (b) bowl depth fraction, (c) piston crown f action, (d) injection duration, (e) start of injection r timing, and (f) spray included half-angle.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

Table 4. Optimum parameter values for the small-bore and large-bore engines. Parameter Small-Bore Optimum Large-Bore Optimum Bowl diameter (cm) 6.2 (76% of bore) 9.9 (72% of bore) Bowl depth fraction 0.85 0.69 Piston crown fraction 0.76 0.62 Injection duration (CA deg.) 26 26 Start of injection timing (CA deg. ATDC) -3.0 -5.7 Spray included half-angle (deg.) 68.4 68.4 Swirl ratio 1.14 1.14 EGR fraction 0.23 0.10 Nozzle hole diameter (mm) 0.11 0.18 Figures 9 and 10 present soot vs. NOx+HC and BSFC vs. NOx+HC, respectively, for many of the simulation cases performed in the small-bore optimization. Also shown in the figures are target value boxes representing the mandated emissions and target fuel consumption levels presented above. Figures 9 and 10 also include the optimization start point and optimum cases, as well as an interesting point, referred to as low BSFC (see arrows). As shown, the optimum case has significantly lower NOx+HC emissions and a lower engine-out soot level. The optimum also has a lower BSFC, when compared to the starting point of the optimization. The optimum has emissions levels well within the mandated levels and a BSFC slightly higher than the target. The low BSFC case was able to achieve both emissions levels and a BSFC within the targets. However, the merit value associated with this design was lower than the optimum due to its higher exhaust temperature that was 10 degrees K above the assigned limit. The excellent performance of this design is worth noting despite its higher exhaust temperature, since the post blowdown exhaust temperature was only estimated in the present study. Most engines with a bowl geometry similar to the optimum case feature a more pronounced center crown. Therefore, a case was run with the same parameter values as the optimum, except a higher center crown height (piston crown fraction of 0.25) was used for comparison. Figure 11 shows the optimum and the high crown cases with contours of the fuel concentration, at 3 degrees ATDC, in a vertical plane coincident with the center of the fuel spray. Figures 12 and 13 show the cylinder pressure and heat release r ate for the optimum and high crown cases, respectively. As shown, the optimum achieves a slightly higher maximum cylinder pressure due to higher heat release near TDC, resulting in a lower BSFC. From Fig. 11 it is apparent that the heat release rate is reduced for the high crown case due to the fuel vapor plume interacting with the surface of the piston, thus inhibiting air entrainment and mixing. Figure 14 presents the temporal history of NOx for the optimum, high crown, and baseline (with the actual experimental engine geometry). As shown, the baseline case, with 0% EGR has significantly higher engine out NOx emissions. The optimum design has slightly higher NOx than the high piston crown case due to its higher cylinder temperature, associated with its higher heat release rate near TDC. Figure 15 presents the temporal soot history for the same three cases. The baseline case (re-entrant chamber geometry), with its larger nozzle hole diameter and lower injection pressure (1100 bar vs. 2000 bar) has higher soot production than either the optimum or the high crown cases. However, the end of significant soot production is realized sooner, due to the shorter injection duration. Therefore, the soot level dips below that of the optimum and high crown designs until about 30 degrees ATDC. As the piston moves further from TDC the soot oxidation rate for the baseline case diminishes, whereas the optimum and high crown cases continue to oxidize soot. The end of strong soot oxidation, in the baseline case, is attributed to the soot that exists in the relatively stagnant squish region, which has a low oxidation rate. Figure 16 shows contours of soot for the baseline case in a vertical plane coincident with the center of the fuel spray. At 13 degrees ATDC the majority of the soot resides in the bowl region, however at 23 degrees ATDC the only significant soot remaining is in the squish region. It should be noted that no soot is found near the cylinder wall, where it would potentially contaminate the lubricating oil and cause premature engine failure. Figure 17 shows contours of the gas velocity magnitude at 28 degrees ATDC. As shown, the relatively stagnant squish zone hinders the oxidation of the soot in that region. The optimum design results in the lowest engine-out soot, followed by the high crown case and the baseline. Figure 18 presents the temporal history of the overall turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) in the combustion chamber for the optimum, high center crown, and baseline cases. As shown the optimum and high crown cases have very low TKE levels up to the time of injection. The baseline design, with its re-entrant bowl,

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 Swirl ratio 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 80

soot (g/kg-fuel)

Maximum merit value

Optimization start point

Optimum Low BSFC case

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

(a)
0.5 500 450 0.4 400 350 EGR fraction 0.3 300 250 0.2 200 150 0.1 100 50 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number 0 80 Maximum merit value

NOx+HC (g/kg-fuel)

Figure 9: Soot vs. NOx+HC data from the present smallbore optimization study (not all points are shown due to scaling) including the optimization start point, optimum, and low BSFC cases.

240

Optimization start point

230

BSFC (g/kW-hr)

220

Optimum
210

(b)
0.20 500 450 Nozzle hole diameter (mm) 0.18 400 350 0.16 300 250 0.14 200 150 0.12 100 50 0.10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number 0 80

200

Low BSFC case

190 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Maximum merit value

NOx+HC (g/kg-fuel)

Figure 10: BSFC vs. NOx+HC data from the present small-bore optimization study (not all points are shown due to scaling) including the optimization start point, optimum, and low BSFC cases. has higher TKE prior to injection due to swirl amplification and strong squish flows. After fuel injection commences, the optimum and high crown cases TKE raises to a level significantly higher than that of the baseline case. This is mainly due to the much higher injection pressure of the optimum and high crown designs (2000 bar vs. 1100 bar). In the optimum and high crown cases it is apparent that the TKE produced from the high injection pressure dominates that produced from the in-cylinder air motion (i.e., swirl and squish flows).

(c)
Figure 8: Merit and parameter values for the best design of each generation of the small-bore optimization study. Shown here are (a) swirl ratio, (b) EGR fraction, and (c) nozzle hole diameter.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

12

10

Optimum High Crown

Pressure (MPa)

0 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

crank angle (deg. ATDC)

Figure 12: Comparison of predicted in-cylinder pressure for the optimum and high crown cases.
100

80

Heat release rate (J/deg.)

Optimum High Crown

60

40

20

0 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

crank angle (deg. ATDC)

Figure 13: Comparison of predicted heat release rate for the optimum and high crown cases.
60

Figure 11. Fuel vapor concentration for the optimum 3 geometry (top) and high center crown (bottom) in g/cm .
NOx (g/kg-fuel)

50

40

Baseline (Measured) Baseline (Predicted) Optimum High Crown

30

20

10

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

crank angle (deg. ATDC)

Figure 14: Comparison of predicted NOx for the optimum, high crown and baseline cases. Circle shows the measured engine-out NOx for the baseline engine [13].

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

14

12

10

soot (g/kg-fuel)

Baseline (Measured) Baseline (Predicted) Optimum High Crown

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

crank angle (deg. ATDC)

Figure 15: Comparison of predicted soot for the optimum, high crown and baseline cases. Circle shows the measured engine-out soot for the baseline engine [13].

Figure 17. Gas velocity magnitude contours at 28 degrees ATDC in cm/s.

1.4x10
6

1.2x10

1.0x10

Optimum High Crown Baseline

TKE (cm /s )

8.0x10

6.0x10

4.0x10

2.0x10

0.0 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

crank angle (deg. ATDC)

Figure 18. Turbulent kinetic energy vs. crank angle for the optimum, high center crown, and baseline designs. LARGE-BORE OPTIMIZATION - Figure 19 presents the maximum merit function curve for the large-bore engine optimization study. As shown in the figure, the optimum design has a significantly higher merit value compared to the present optimization start point, which features the actual test engine geometry. Notice that the merit function remains constant from about generation 65 onward, indicating convergence of the optimization. Figure 19 also presents the chamber geometries and spray included angles corresponding to the major merit value changes (the baseline geometry and angle are shown for reference). Interestingly, designs with large geometric differences are produced during the evolution process (note that many other geometries were tried in the optimization and only those corresponding to the maximum merit are shown, as n i Figure 6). During the first 6 generations, deep bowl, low piston crown designs are favored, while a shallow bowl with a large radius is the most fit design for generations

Figure 16. Soot concentration for the baseline engine geometry at 13 degrees ATDC (top) and 23 degrees 3 ATDC (bottom) in g/cm .

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

7 through 16. The bowl diameter next decreases along with an increase in bowl depth. Interestingly, the final best geometry (shown in the upper right of the figure), which remains unchanged after generation 20, is somewhat similar to the baseline geometry, however, it includes a slightly wider bowl with less depth and a lower piston crown. The reduced volume in the bowl is evident in the larger squish height compared to the baseline geometry. Recall that the compression ratio was held constant for all geometries considered. The spray included angles for the best-sofar designs are also shown in Fig. 19 (see arrows). As with the geometric parameters, the optimal spray angle remains the same after generation 20 at 68.4 degrees, which should be compared to the baseline engines 62.5 degrees (see table 3). Although the three parameters defining the bowl geometry and the spray included half-angle remain constant after generation 20 for the best-so-far design,

changes in the other 5 parameters result in increases in merit beyond this point. Figures 20 and 21 present the 9 parameter values for the best design of each generation, along with the corresponding merit curve for reference. Figures 20(a), (b), (c) and (f) illustrate the relatively fast convergence of the chamber geometry and spray included half-angle. In addition, the swirl ratio converges very quickly, as shown in Fig. 21(a). This relatively low value of about 1.1 is similar to the baseline swirl value of 1.0. With the geometry, spray angle and swirl ratio converged, the remaining generations increased to the highest merit by looking at different combinations of injection duration, SOI, EGR and nozzle hole diameter. The final values of the 9 parameters are presented in Table 4. Note that the optimum design features 10% EGR and a 2000 bar injection pressure with a 0.18 mm nozzle hole diameter.

300

250

Maximum merit value

200

150

100

50

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Generation number
Baseline geometry
Figure 19: Maximum merit function curve for the large-bore engine optimization study. Also shown are the chamber geometries and spray included angles corresponding to the major merit value changes.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

12 11 Bowl diameter (cm) 10 9

300 250 Maximum merit value Bowl depth fraction 200 150

1.0

300 250
Maximum merit value

0.9

200 0.8 150 0.7 100 0.6 50 0 80

8 100 7 6 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number 0.9 0.8 50 0 80

0.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number

300 250
Injection duration (CA deg.)

30 28

300 250

26
Maximum merit value

Piston crown fraction

0.7 0.6

Maximum merit value

200 150

24 22 20 18 16

200 150 100 50

0.5 100 0.4 0.3 0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number 6 300 50 0 80

14 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number 0 80

80 Spray included half-angle (deg.) 70 60 50 40 30 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number

300 250
Maximum merit value

Start of injection timing (CA deg. ATDC)

4 2 0
Maximum merit value

250 200 150 100 50 0 80

-2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number

200 150 100 50 0 80

Figure 20. Merit and parameter values for the best design for each generation of the large-bore optimization study. Shown here are the (a) bowl diameter, (b) bowl depth fraction, (c) piston crown fraction, (d) injection duration, (e) start of injection timing, and (f) spray included half-angle.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

4.0 3.5 3.0

300 250
Maximum merit value

2.5 Swirl ratio 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number

200 150 100 50 0 80

0.5

300 250 200 Maximum merit value

0.4

0.3

150 0.2 100 0.1 50 0 80

0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number

0.28 0.26 Nozzle hole diameter (mm) 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Generation number

levels presented above. Figures 22 and 23 also include the optimization start point and optimum cases (see arrows). As shown, the optimum case has significantly lower NOx+HC emissions with a slightly lower engineout soot level. In addition, while the optimums BSFC is higher than the optimization start points value, it is still well within the target level of 215 g/kW-hr. While the optimum case meets the target levels of soot and BSFC, it does not meet the 2002/2004 mandated NOx+HC levels. On the other hand, the optimum of Senecal et al. [12] for this engine and operating condition (0.038 g/kW-hr soot and 2.04 g/kWhr NOx+HC) was well within the mandated emissions levels. This difference in optima is attributed to the fact that both boost pressure and split injections were included in the previous optimization study of Senecal et al. [12], but were not included here due to the addition of the geometric parameters, spray included half-angle, swirl ratio and nozzle hole diameter. As shown in Table 4, the optimal EGR level is 10% for the present study. One would expect that more EGR would result in even lower NOx+HC, but with a penalty in soot. The use of increased boost pressure (211 kPa compared to 162 kPa in the present study) and a split injection strategy in the previous optimization study allowed for reduced NOx with a higher EGR level of about 17%, with very low soot emissions. A comparison of the previous and present optimization studies indicates the significant influence of boost pressure (i.e., global air-fuel ratio control) in meeting future mandated emissions levels.
1.0

EGR fraction

300 250

0.8 soot (g/kW-hr)

Maximum merit value

200 150 100 50 0 80

0.6

0.4
Optimum Optimization start point

0.2

Figure 21. Merit and parameter values for the best design for each generation of the large-bore optimization study. Shown here are the (a) swirl ratio, (b) EGR fraction, and (c) nozzle hole diameter. Figures 22 and 23 present soot vs. NOx+HC and BSFC vs. NOx+HC, respectively, for the simulation cases performed in the large-bore optimization study. Also shown in the figures are target value boxes representing the mandated emissions and baseline fuel consumption

0.0 0 2

High ex. temp. cases

10

12

14

16

18

20

Low emissions case

NOx+HC (g/kW-hr)

Figure 22: Soot vs. NOx+HC data from the present large-bore optimization study (not all points are shown due to scaling) including the optimization start point, optimum, and low emissions cases.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

240

14

12

Optimum Optimum with baseline geometry

230 BSFC (g/kW-hr)

High ex. temp. cases

Pressure (MPa)

Low emissions case

10

220

210

200

Optimum
0

190 0 2

Optimization start point

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

12

14

16

18

20

crank angle (deg. ATDC)

NOx+HC (g/kW-hr)

Figure 23: BSFC vs. NOx+HC data from the present large-bore optimization study (not all points are shown due to scaling) including the optimization start point, optimum, and low emissions cases.

Figure 24: Comparison of predicted in-cylinder pressure for the large-bore optimum and optimum with baseline (i.e., production engine) geometry cases.

500

A few of the other cases presented in Figs. 22 and 23 are worthy of some discussion. First of all, the point labeled low emissions case does meet the mandated emissions levels. However, as shown in Fig. 23, its BSFC value is relatively high resulting in a lower merit function value compared to the optimum. In addition, the two circled points labeled high ex. temp. cases have emissions levels very near the mandated levels. However, these cases also have relatively high BSFC values (224 and 219 g/kW-hr), and both violate the exhaust temperature constraint described above. In order to further investigate the effect of geometry on emissions and performance, an additional simulation was performed which includes the baseline engine geometry (see Fig. 4) and the optimum levels of the other 6 parameters, determined in the present study. A comparison of this case, called optimum with baseline geometry, with the optimum case is presented in Figs. 24-27. As shown in the figures, the optimum case has a slightly higher peak pressure, slightly less NOx and significantly less soot compared to the optimum with baseline geometry case. These differences are reflected in the merit value for the optimum with baseline geometry case, which is predicted to be about 148, compared to a merit of 254 for the optimum case.

400

Optimum Optimum with baseline geometry

Heat release rate (J/deg.)

300

200

100

0 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

crank angle (deg. ATDC)

Figure 25: Comparison of predicted heat release rate for the large-bore optimum a optimum with baseline (i.e., nd production engine) geometry cases.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

30

25

20

15

10

Optimum Optimum with baseline geometry

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

crank angle (deg. ATDC)

Figure 26: Comparison of predicted NOx for the largebore optimum and optimum with baseline (i.e., production engine) geometry cases.
6

BSFC and soot emissions, but has higher NOx+HC emissions. The higher NOx+HC emissions of the largebore engine may be attributed to its lower EGR level (i.e., 10% vs. 23%). The convergence to a lower EGR level for the large-bore engine may be due to the poorer air utilization inherent with the large-bore engine, i.e., it may be more difficult to mix the air and fuel in the largebore engine using one centrally located fuel injector. However, it is also likely due to the target values of emissions chosen. The present small-bore and largebore emission targets are shown again in Table 6. The small-bore targets were converted to g/kW-hr using the BSFC from the optimum design. As shown, the smallbore targets place more emphasis on NOx+HC emissions, while the large-bore targets place more emphasis on soot emissions. The NOx+HC targets for the large-bore engine are 25 times the soot targets, while the NOx+HC targets are only about 4 times the soot targets for the small-bore engine. This explains why the large-bore engine achieved lower soot emissions and BSFC than the small-bore engine. Table 5. Soot, NOx+HC, and BSFC for the optimum designs, all in g/kW-hr. Parameter Large-bore Small-bore Soot 0.115 0.223 NOx+HC 5.0 1.06 BSFC 204 216 Table 6. Soot and NOx+HC emissions targets in g/kWhr. Parameter Large-bore Small-bore Soot 0.13 0.32 NOx+HC 3.35 1.3

NOx (g/kg-fuel)

Optimum Optimum with baseline geometry

soot (g/kg-fuel)

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

crank angle (deg. ATDC)

Figure 27: Comparison of predicted soot for the argel bore optimum and optimum with baseline (i.e., production engine) geometry cases. COMPARISON OF RESULTS It is interesting to note from Figures 6 and 19 that the predicted optima for the small and large bore engine geometries are remarkably similar ( ee also Table 4). Both engines favor relatively s large diameter shallow bowls. This is consistent with the high injection pressures (2000 bar) found for both engines optimum designs, where spray induced mixing is favored over swirl-flow induced mixing. Again, at higher engine speeds, higher air motion induced mixing may be required to maintain good performance. Table 5 presents the predicted optimum values of soot, NOx+HC emissions, and BSFC, all in g/kW-hr, for the small-bore and large bore engines. The small-bore emissions were converted to g/kW-hr using the BSFC of the optimum. As shown, the large-bore engines optimum has lower

It is interesting to compare the values of the nine parameters for each engine, from Table 4. The bowl geometries are quite similar, with the small-bore engine having a slightly larger and deeper bowl, with respect to the bore. The optimum injection duration, spray orientation angle, and swirl ratio were found to be the same for both engines, which may be attributed to the very similar operating conditions. For the large-bore engine, the start of injection timing is more advanced and the EGR level is lower, as mentioned above. This can be attributed to the large-bore emission targets emphasis on low soot emissions.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

CONCLUSIONS Chamber geometry optimization is an excellent application of KIVA-GA since KIVA features 3-D spatial resolution and thus allows for many designs to be investigated without actually manufacturing many different engine components (e.g., pistons, cylinder heads, etc.). KIVA-GA is an efficient tool for optimizing combustion systems within the vast search space available to modern flexible electronically controlled engines. Both the small-bore and heavy -duty diesel engines considered favored relatively large diameter shallow piston bowls, long injection durations at high pressure through small holes, and moderate swirl, at the operating conditions investigated (i.e., medium speed, high load). The optimum start of injection timing and EGR level are very sensitive to the NOx target value chosen. Precise control over the global air / fuel ratio is very important for achieving simultaneous emissions and fuel consumption reductions. The optimum combustion chamber designs found in the current study were able to keep the soot away from the combustion chamber walls, where it could contaminate the lubricating oil and threaten engine longevity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the following organizations for their generous support during the course of this work: Ford Research Center in AachenGermany (FFA), the Army Research Office, Caterpillar Inc., and DOE / Sandia National Laboratories. REFERENCES 1.) Singal, S. K., Pundir, B. P., Mehta, P. S., Fuel Spray-Air Motion Interaction in DI Diesel Engines: A Review, SAE 930604, 1993. 2.) Middlemiss, I. D., Characteristics of the Perkins Squish Lip Direct Injection Combustion System, SAE 780113, 1978. 3.) Saito, T., Yasuhiro, D., Uchida, N., Ikeya, N., Effects of Combustion Chamber Geometry on Diesel Combustion, SAE 861186, 1986. 4.) Sakata, I., Ishisaka, K., Yanagihara, H., Sami, H., Nagaoka, M., Ohsawa, K., Development of

TOYOTA Reflex Burn (TRB) System in DI Diesel, SAE 900658, 1990. 5.) Corcione, F. E., Prati, M. V., Vaglieco, B. M., Valentino, G., Improvement of Combustion System of a Small D. I. Diesel Engine for Low Exhaust Emissions, SAE 910481, 1991. 6.) Zhang, L., Ueda, T., Takatsuki, T., Yokota, K., A Study of the Effects of Chamber Geometries on Flame Behavior in a DI Diesel Engine, SAE 952515, 1995. 7.) Zolver, M., Griard, S., Henriot, S., 3D Modeling Applied to the Development of a DI Diesel Engine: Effect of Piston Bowl Shape, SAE 971599, 1997. 8.) De Risi, A., Manieri, D., and Laforgia, D., "A Theoretical Investigation on the Effects of Combustion Chamber Geometry and Engine Speed on Soot and NOx Emissions", ASME-ICE, vol. 33-1, pp. 51-59, Book No. G1127A, 1999. 9.) Bianchi, G. M., Pelloni, P., Corcione, F. E., Mattarelli, E., Luppino Bertoni, F., Numerical Study of the Combustion Chamber Shape for Common Rail H.S.D.I. Diesel Engines, SAE 2000-01-1179, 2000. 10.) Boulouchos, K., Strategies for Future Engine Combustion Systems Homogeneous or Stratified Charge ?, SAE 2000-01-0650, 2000. 11.) Senecal, P. K., Reitz, R. D., Simultaneous Reduction of Engine Emissions and Fuel Consumption Using Genetic Algorithms and MultiDimensional Spray and Combustion Modeling, SAE 2000-01-1890, 2000. 12.) Senecal, P. K., Montgomery, D. T., Reitz, R. D., Diesel Engine Optimization Using Multi-Dimensional Modeling and Genetic Algorithms Applied to a Medium Speed, High Load Operating Condition, ASME-ICED 2000 Fall Technical Conference, 2000. 13.) Corgard, D., Reitz, R. D., Effects of Alternative Fuels and Intake Port Geometry on HSDI Diesel Engine Performance and Emissions, submitted for publication, SAE 2000 Congress, 2000. 14.) Montgomery, D. T., Ph.D. Thesis, An Investigation into Optimization of Heavy -Duty Diesel Operating Parameters when Using Multiple Injections and EGR, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2000. 15.) Amsden, A. A., KIVA-3V: A Block-Structured KIVA Program for Engines with Vertical or Canted Valves, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report NO. LA13313-MS, 1997. 16.) Senecal, P. K., Development of a Methodology for Internal Combustion Engine Design Using MultiDimensional Modeling with Validation Through Experiments, Ph.D. Thesis, University of WisconsinMadison, 2000. 17.) Han, Z and Reitz, R. D., Turbulence Modeling of Internal Combustion Engines Using k -? Models, Combust. Sci. and Tech., 106, 267, 1995.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means. Downloaded from SAE International by Daimler AG - Germany, Copyright 2012 SAE International Wednesday, February 01, 2012 06:59:44 AM

18.) Han, Z. and Reitz, R. D., A Temperature Wall Function Formulation for Variable-Density Turbulence Flows with Application to Engine Convective Heat Transfer Modeling, Int. J. o Heat f and Mass Transfer, 40, 613, 1997. 19.) Sarre, C., Kong, S.-C. and Reitz, R. D., Modeling the Effects of Injector Nozzle Geometry on Diesel Sprays, SAE 1999-01-0912, 1999. 20.) Rutland, C. J., Eckhause, J., Hampson, G., Hessel, R., Kong, S., Patterson, M., Pierpont, D., Sweetland, P., Tow, T. and Reitz, R. D., Toward Predictive Modeling of Diesel Engine Intake Flow, Combustion, and Emissions, SAE 941897, 1994. 21.) Halstead, M., Kirsh, L. and Quinn, C., The Autoignition of Hydrocarbon Fuels at High Temperatures and Pressures Fitting of a Mathematical Model, Combust. Flame, 30, 45, 1977. 22.) Kong, S.-C., Han, Z. and Reitz, R. D., The Development and Application of a Diesel Ignition and Combustion Model for Multidimensional Engine Simulation, SAE 950278, 1995. 23.) Hiroyasu, H. and Kadota, T., Models for Combustion and Formation of Nitric Oxide and Soot in DI Diesel Engines, SAE 760129, 1976. 24.) Nagle, J. and Strickland-Constable, R. F., Oxidation of Carbon Between 1000-2000 C, Proc. of the Fifth Carbon Conf., 1, 154, 1962. 25.) Bowman, C. T., Kinetics of Pollutant Formation and Destruction in Combustion, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 1, 33, 1975. 26.) Patterson, M. A., Kong, S.-C., Hampson, G. J. and Reitz, R. D., Modeling the Effects of Fuel Injection Characteristics on Diesel Engine Soot and NOx Emissions, SAE 940523, 1994. 27.) Zhu, Y., Reitz, R. D., A 1-D Gas Dynamics Code for Subsonic and Supersonic Flows Applied to Predict EGR Levels in a Heavy -Duty Diesel Engine, Int. Journal of Vehicle Design, 1998. 28.) Senecal, P. K., Uludogan, A. and Reitz, R. D., Development of Novel Direct-Injection Diesel Engine Designs using Computational Fluid Dynamics, SAE 971594, 1997. 29.) Wickman, D. D., Tanin, K. V., Senecal, P. K., Reitz, R. D., Gebert, K., Barkhimer, R. L. and Beck, N. J., Methods and Results from the Development of a 2600 Bar Diesel Fuel Injection System, SAE 200001-0947, 2000. 30.) Montgomery, D. T., Reitz, R. D., Optimization of Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Operating Parameters Using A Response Surface Method, SAE 2000-011962, 2000. 31.) Affes, H., Trigui, N., Smith D. and Griaznov, V., Shape Optimization of IC Engine Ports and Chambers, SAE 980127, 1998.

32.) Pilley, A. D., Beaumont, A. J., Robinson, D. R. and Mowll D., Design of Experiments for Optimization of th Engines to Meet Future Emissions Targets, 27 Int. Symposium on Automotive Technology and Automation, ISATA Paper 94ENO14, 1994. 33.) Carroll, D. L., Chemical Laser Modeling with Genetic Algorithms, AIAA Journal, 34, 338, 1996. 34.) Coello Coello, C. A., Christiansen, A. D. and Santos Hernandez, F., A Simple Genetic Algorithm for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams, Engineering with Computers, 13, 185, 1997. 35.) Edwards, S. P., Pilley, A. D., Michon, S. and Fournier, G., The Optimization of Common Rail FIE Equipped Engines Through the use of Statistical Experimental Design, Mathematical Modelling and Genetic Algorithms, SAE 970346, 1997. 36.) Krishnakumar, K., Micro-Genetic Algorithms for Stationary and Non-Stationary Function Optimization, SPIE 1196, Intelligent Control and Adaptive Systems, 1989. 37.) Carroll, D. L., Genetic Algorithms and Optimizing Chemical Oxygen-Iodine Lasers, Developments in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, 18, 411, 1996.