Comparison of Conventional Diesel and

Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition

(RCCI) Combustion
in a Light-Duty Engine
Rolf D. Reitz and Sage L. Kokjohn
Engine Research Center,
University of Wisconsin-Madison

2012 Directions in Engine-Efficiency

and Emissions Research
(DEER) Conference
(Thursday, October 18th )
Acknowledgements: DOE Sandia labs,
Direct-injection Engine Research Consortium
1

DEER 10/18/2012

Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition - RCCI

HCCI Combustion offers high efficiency & low PM and NOx
emissions, but is sensitive to fuel properties, is limited to low
load and has no direct means to control combustion phasing
Control can be provided by varying fuel reactivity using TWO
fuels with different reactivities - dual-fuel PCCI = RCCI:
Port fuel injection of gasoline
(mixed with intake air, as in spark-ignition engines)
Multiple direct-injections of diesel fuel into combustion
chamber later during compression (as in diesel engines)
Optimized fuel blending in-cylinder
H/PCCI

- Emissions regs. met in-cylinder

- No Diesel Exhaust Fluid tank!

RCCI

DEER
10/18/2012
Gasoline
Diesel

Optimized Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition

Port injected gasoline

Direct injected diesel

Gasoline

Injection
Signal

Gasoline

Squish
Conditioning

-80 to -50

Ignition
Source
Diesel

-45 to -30

Crank Angle (deg. ATDC)

Diesel

CFD plus Genetic Algorithms used

to optimize multiple injection strategy
3

DEER 10/18/2012

Dual fuel RCCI combustion controlled HCCI

Kokjohn, IJER 2011

Heat release occurs in 3 stages

Cool flame reactions from diesel (n-heptane) injection
First energy release where both fuels are mixed
Final energy release where lower reactivity fuel is located
Changing fuel ratios changes relative magnitudes of stages
Fueling ratio provides next cycle CA50 transient control

AHRR [J/o]

150

95
Cool Flame

PRF Burn

Primarly
n-heptane

n-heptane
+ entrained
iso-octane

Iso-octane Burn

Delivery Ratio [% iso-octane]

200

Primarly
iso-octane

100
50
0

RCCI

-20

-10

0
o
Crank [ ATDC]

10

90
85
80
75
70
65

RCCI
SOI = -50 ATDC

60
55

20

d( D el i ver yRati o) = 0 4 per cent

:
d(CA50=2
I nt:Temp:) ATDC
K

80

90

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

4
Intake Temperature [oC]

DEER 10/18/2012

Light-duty automotive drive-cycle performance

Compare conventional diesel
combustion (CDC) and Reactivity
Controlled Compression Ignition
(RCCI) combustion
Same operating conditions
(CR, boost, IMT, swirl..)
ERC KIVA-Chemkin Code
- Reduced PRF model for diesel
and gasoline kinetics
- Improved ERC spray models
Diesel fuel injector specifications
Bosch common
rail
Included angle
155
Number of holes
7
Hole size (m)
141
Type

Kokjohn, PhD thesis 2012

Combustion chamber geometry

Engine specifications
Base engine
Bore (mm)
Stroke (mm)
Connecting rod (mm)
Squish height (mm)
Displacement (L)
Compression ratio
Swirl ratio
IVC (ATDC)
EVO (ATDC)

GM 1.9 L
82
90.4
145.5
0.617
0.4774
16.7:1
1.5 - 3.2
-132
112

DEER 10/18/2012

Comparison between RCCI and Conventional Diesel

Cooper, SAE 2006-01-1145

(assumes 3500lb Passenger Car)

Evaluate NOx / fuel efficiency

tradeoff using SCR for CDC
Assumptions
Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF)
consumption 1% per g/kW-hr
NOx reduction

12
10

IMEPg [bar]

Five operating points of Adhoc fuels working group

Tier 2 bin 5 NOx targets from:

8
6

Ad-hoc fuels working group

SAE 2001-01-0151

Size shows
weighting

1000

Speed
Mode (rpm)
Johnson, SAE 2011-01-0304
1
1500
No DPF regeneration penalty
2
1500
UHC and CO only lead to
3
2000
4
2300
reduced work
5
2600
*Baseline CDC Euro 4: SAE 2012-01-0380
6

1500
2000
Speed [rev/min]

IMEP
(bar)
2
3.9
3.3
5.5
9

2500

3000

CDC
Baseline
NOx
NOx (g/kgf) Target
*
(g/kgf)
1.3
0.2
0.9
0.4
1.1
0.3
8.4
0.6
17.2
1.2

DEER 10/18/2012

Euro 4 operating conditions - Conventional Diesel

50

Mode 2

Mode 3

Experiment
Simulation

2
3.9
1500
9.5
60
1
38
400
-7.2
0
16
60

Experiment
Simulation

40

30

30

20

20
10

10

0
-30

100

50

40

-20

-10

0
10 20 30
Crank [deg. ATDC]

40

50

30

-20

-10

0
10 20 30
Crank [deg. ATDC]

40

3
3.3
2000
8
70
1
42
500
-8.2
1.6
15

50

*Baseline CDC Euro 4: SAE 2012-01-0380

7

Mode 4

80

4
5.5
2300
13.3
67
1.3
25
780
-11.7
-0.1
10

Experiment
Simulation

Mode 5

5
9
2600
20.9
64
1.6
15
1100
-15.4
-2.6
5
100

Experiment
Simulation

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

0
-30

0
-20

-10

0
10 20 30
Crank [deg. ATDC]

40

5030

-20

-10

0
10 20 30
Crank [deg. ATDC]

DEER 10/18/2012

40

50

AHRR [J/deg.]

Cylinder Pressure [bar]

60

1
2.3
1500
5.6
60
1
47
330
-5.8
1.6
34

Cylinder Pressure [bar]

Mode
IMEPg (bar)
Speed (rev/min)
Total Fuel (mg/inj)
Intake Temp. (C)
Intake Press. (bar abs)
EGR Rate (%)
CR Inj. Pressure (bar)
Pilot SOI ( ATDC)
Main SOI ( ATDC)
DI fuel in Pilot (%)

CDC Operating Conditions *

AHRR [J/deg.]

Model validation

Model Validation (Euro 4)

Cycle average emissions and performance
Cycle EINOx and EISoot [g/kgf]

Experiment
Simulation

20
10

EISoot [g/kgf]

0
1

0.5

40

2.5
2

Tier 2 Bin 5

1.5
1

Experiment
Simulation

38
36
34
32

0.5
0

30

EISoot

EINOx

GIE

Optimized CDC with SCR for Tier 2 Bin 5

100

40
35
30
1

Weighted
average:

3
Mode

4
5

Ecycle =

Cylinder Pressure [bar]

45
GIE [%]

42

Experiment
Simulation

Experiment-Euro 4
Simulation - Euro 4
CDC - Peak GIE

80

100

Mode 3

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

EimodeWeightimode

imode=1
5

imode=1

Weightimode

-20

-10

20
10
0
Crank [deg. ATDC]

30

AHRR [J/deg.]

EINOx [g/kgf]

30

3.5

Cycle GIE [%]

Comparison at 5 Modes

CDC optimized
GIE has higher
allowable PPRR
(advanced SOI)
than Euro 4
calibration

40

DEER 10/18/2012

Comparison between RCCI and CDC plus SCR

CDC (with SCR)
Main injection timing swept
DEF consumption 1% per 1
g/kW-hr reduction in NOx
GIETotal

CDC optimization with SCR

Euro 4

Work180 to 180
100
( mDEF + mFuel ) * LHVFuel

Peak efficiency at tradeoff

between fuel consumption (SOI
timing) and DEF consumption
(engine-out NOx)
RCCI (No SCR needed)
Gasoline amount controls CA50
to meet NOx/PRR constraints
Mode 1 uses diesel LTC (no
gasoline and EGR)
Mode 5 has EGR for CA50 control

DEER 10/18/2012

Comparison of Efficiency, NOx and PRR

RCCI meets NOx Tier 2 Bin 5 targets
without DEF
DEF NOx after-treatment has small
efficiency penalty at light-load and
moderate EGR (~40%)
DEF penalty larger above 5 bar IMEP

10

DEER 10/18/2012

Cycle averaged NOx, Soot and GIE

RCCI and CDC compared at
baseline and Tier 2 Bin 5 NOx
CDC NOx-GIE tradeoff controlled
by main injection timing
RCCI meets NOx targets without
after-treatment
RCCI gives ~7% improvement in
fuel consumption over CDC+SCR
RCCI soot is an order of magnitude
lower than CDC+SCR
RCCI HC is ~5 times higher than
CDC+SCR
Crevice-originated HC emissions
Splitter, SAE 2012-01-0383
11

DEER 10/18/2012

Future research directions

LD RCCI improved by relaxing constraints (Euro 4 boost, IMT, swirl..)
Peak efficiency at Mode 5 is 46.1% CFD predicts increase to ~53%
7% + 15% ~ DOE goals of 20-40% improvement
Higher boost (1.86 bar vs. 1.6 bar) allows CA50 advance with same
PRR, lowers heat transfer losses due to lower (lower temps)
Lower swirl reduces convective heat transfer losses
Higher wall temps improve combustion efficiency (steel piston)
15 bar/

11 bar/ 8.8 bar/

6.7 bar/

15%

15 bar/
18 bar/

Mode 5

Numbers show
Peak PRR

9.4bar/
Selected

12

Kokjohn,
PhD thesis
2012

DEER 10/18/2012

Summary and Conclusions

RCCI yields clean, quiet, and efficient combustion over wide
load/speed ranges (HD: 4 to 23 bar IMEP, 800 to 1800 rev/min).
HD: EPA 2010 NOx/PM emissions met in-cylinder with GIE >55%
LD: Low NOx and PM emissions with less EGR over FTP cycle.
Suggested RCCI strategy: Optimized high EGR CDC combustion
at low load (idle) and no EGR up to Mode 5 (~9 bar IMEP).
RCCI LD modeling indicates ~7% improved fuel consumption
over CDC+SCR over FTP cycle using same engine/conditions.
RCCI meets Tier 2 bin 5 without needing NOx after-treatment or
DPF, but DOC will likely be needed for UHC reduction
Further RCCI optimization possible with:
higher boost pressure, higher piston temps,
reduced swirl, surface area, optimized crevice
RCCI experiments/modeling: optimized pistons,
alternative fuels .. and vehicle testing!
13

DEER 10/18/2012

Comparison between RCCI and Conventional Diesel

CDC and RCCI efficiency sensitive to selected value of peak PRR
Maximum allowable PRR of CDC points set at 1.5 times higher than for RCCI
Mode
IMEPg (bar)
Speed (rev/min)
Total Fuel (mg/inj.)
Intake Temp. (deg. C)
Intake Press. (bar abs.)
EGR Rate (%)
Premixed Gasoline (%)
CR Inj. Pressure (bar)

CDC

RCCI

1
2.3

2
3.9

CDC

RCCI

3
3.3

CDC

RCCI

4
5.5

CDC

5
9

RCCI

1500

2000

2300

2600

5.6
60
1

9.5
60
1

8
70
1

13.3
67
1.3

20.9
64
1.6

61
0
500
-33/
-8

Percent of DI fuel in Pilot

20

DEF (%)

0.9

SOI ( ATDC) Peak GIE

RCCI

1500

47
0
330
-5.8/
1.6
-14.4/
-6

SOI ( ATDC) Baseline

CDC

38
0
400
-7.2/
0
-20.2/
-5

0
80
500
-58/
-37

42

15

0.8

N/A

42
0
500
-8.2/
1.6
-15.8/
-6

0
55
500
-58/
-37

60

15

0.7

N/A

14

25
0
780
11.7/
0
-17.6/
-6

0
80
500
-58/
-37

60

10

N/A

15
0
1100
-18.6/
-2.6
-23/
-7

36
89
500
-58/
-37

10

60

4.6

N/A

DEER 10/18/2012

N/A

RCCI Model Validation

IMEPg (bar)
Speed (rev/min)
Total Fuel (mg/inj.)
Intake Temp. (deg. C)
Intake Press. (bar abs.)
EGR Rate (%)
CR Inj. Pressure (bar)
Pilot SOI (CA) (actual)
Main SOI ( ATDC) (actual)
Percent of DI fuel in Pilot (%)

Kokjohn et al. SAE 2011-01-0375

15

9
1900
20
36
1.86
41
500
-56
-35
60%

DEER 10/18/2012