Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, Zhenjiang, China
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
h i g h l i g h t s
Performance optimization of a CI engine fueled with soy biodiesel was conducted.
Both GA and hybrid PSOGA algorithms were tested.
The present hybrid PSOGA algorithm was proven an effective tool for engine combustion optimization.
The dynamometer time, fuel economy, and exhaust emissions were improved by use of the hybrid PSOGA algorithm.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 29 May 2015
Received in revised form 18 November 2015
Accepted 12 December 2015
Keywords:
Biodiesel engine performance
Particle swarm optimization
Genetic algorithm
a b s t r a c t
Efficient optimization algorithms are critical to the development of new engine technology. In this study,
experimental investigations were carried out on optimizing the performance of a four-cylinder,
turbocharged, direct-injection diesel engine running with soy biodiesel. An effective hybrid particle
swarm optimization (PSO) and genetic algorithm (GA) method using a small population was developed
and tested to optimize five operating parameters, including EGR rate, pilot timing, pilot ratio, main injection timing, and injection pressure. Based on the measured engine performance and emissions, results
show that the new hybrid algorithm can significantly speed up the optimization process and achieve a
superior optimum as compared to the basic GA method. The new hybrid PSOGA method is expected
to perform as an effective tool for rapid engine performance optimization.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Diesel engines have been the primary power source for industrial and transportation applications because of their advantages
in high efficiency and high power density compared to sparkignition (SI) engines [1]. Nonetheless, there are still incentives to
improve the performance of diesel engines, namely reducing the
brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and high exhaust emissions
of particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) [25]. On
the other hand, in order to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels,
many different types of alternative fuels have been under investigation [68]. Biodiesel, a mixture of fatty acid methyl ester that can
be produced from different biomass feedstocks, is a popular alternative to diesel fuel. It has been widely accepted that biodiesel can
effectively reduce engine-out emissions of PM, carbon monoxide
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kong@iastate.edu (S.-C. Kong).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.044
0306-2619/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
677
Xi 1 Xi Vi 1
X m i 1 X c i 1 rand=i
678
Generation i
P1
Pn
Pn+1
PN
...
Pn
Tournament selection
Crossover
Dynamic mutation
GA Steps
...
PN
Generation i+1
P1
Pn
Pn+1
PN
Step 2: Calculate the value of the objective function. If the termination condition is met, the algorithm terminates.
Step 3: Obtain the new velocities V(i + 1) and positions X(i + 1)
of particles using Eqs. (1) and (2), and then update
Pbest,j and Gbest.
Step 4: Identify the best n members and discard the rest of the
Nn members.
GA steps:
Step 5: Tournament selection based on n members. Select these
n individuals from X(i + 1) to form the mating pool with
a population of Xs(i + 1).
Step 6: Crossover. Perform crossover operation on population
Xs(i + 1) to form a population Xc(i + 1).
Step 7: Dynamic mutation. Mutate a single element of an individual with the mutation rate of pm to form a population
Xm(i + 1) using Eq. (3) and create Nn members.
Step 8: Form the new generation i + 1 which includes n
members from PSO and Nn members from GA.
Return to step 2.
2.2. Testing hybrid PSOGA for benchmark functions
Three widely used multimodal minimization benchmark functions, listed in Table 1, were used to test the performance of the
679
Equations
q
Pn
Ackley
x2
1 i
Pn
cos2pxi
n
n
f 1 x 20exp0:2
exp
P
f 2 x n1 x2i 10 cos2pxi 10
P x2i Qn
1 10 cos pxii 1
f 3 x n1 4000
Rastrigin
Griewangk
Range of variables
Optimum
[32.768, 32.768]
[5.12, 5.12]
[600.0, 600.0]
20 e
Table 2
Results of hybrid PSOGA with population 6, 8 and 10 for three test functions.
Test function
f1
f2
f3
Average error
N=6
N=8
N = 10
N=6
N=8
N = 10
50
54
58
40
42
46
40
43
44
1.2072e08
2.0612
0.19958
4.0966e14
0.08266
0.028726
1.0694e14
0.056515
0.0219163
Table 3
Results of PSOGA, BGA and BPSO for three functions.
Test function
f1
f2
f3
Table 4
Test engine specifications.
Type of engine
Cylinder number
Bore (mm)
Stroke (mm)
Compression ratio
Injection system
Intake valves/exhaust valves
4
106
127
17.0:1
Common rail
2/2
flow rate of EGR from the exhaust. The cylinder pressure was measured using a Kistler 6125A pressure transducer and a Kistler
5010A charge amplifier. The data was processed using a customized LabVIEW program which captured and averaged cycle
data for cylinder pressure and heat release rate analysis.
The exhaust emissions were measured using a Horiba MEXA
7100 DEGR gas analyzer for NOx, HC, CO2, CO and O2. The primary
sampling and secondary sampling allowed for a live EGR calculation using the CO2 ratio between the intake and exhaust gases.
The particulate matter emissions were measured using an AVL
415S smoke meter.
The load condition chosen was approximately 50% of the rated
constant-duty load at 1400 rpm, which represents an important
part-load condition where control parameters play a critical role
in exhaust emissions and fuel economy. On each testing day, the
engine was started from rest and allowed to run for at least
30 min for warm up. The conditions of each test were determined
by the optimization algorithm. Following the input of each test
points operation parameters the engine was allowed to run for
at least ten minutes to assure steady state operation. In total, five
variables were changed throughout the experiments that have
non-separable effects on engine performance and emissions. The
test conditions and limits of the engine control parameters are
shown in Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5
Test conditions.
Average error
PSOGA
BGA
BPSO
4.0966e14
0.08266
0.028726
1.2415
0.60969
0.30626
1.3279
1.1741
1.5254
Speed (rpm)
Torque (N-m)
Intake temperature (C)
EGR temperature (C)
Fuel temperature (C)
1400
149
40
40
16.3
680
Table 6
Engine control parameter limits.
Parameter
Minimum
Maximum
EGR (%)
Fuel pressure (MPa)
Pilot timing (CAD ATDC)
Pilot ratio (%)
Main SOI (CAD ATDC)
2.0
113.0
40.0
2.0
15
50.0
200.0
0
65.5
5
2
2 #0:5
NOxmeas
PMmeas
NOxideal
PMideal
COmeas
HC meas
FC meas
3 COideal
3 HC ideal
3 FC ideal
NOxmeas
NOxobj
NOxideal
PMmeas
PMobj
PM ideal
"
F obj
4
5
Table 7
Ideal values for emissions.
Emission objective
Tier 4 regulation
Ideal values
NOx (g/kW h)
NMHC (g/kW h)
CO (g/kW h)
PM (g/kW h)
BSFC (g/kW h)
0.40
0.19
5.0
0.02
0.20
0.19
5.0
0.01
200
Fig. 4. Values of the overall objective function using the basic GA method.
Fig. 5. Average and minimum values of the overall objective function using the
basic GA method.
681
Fig. 7. Average and minimum values of the objective function for NOx and PM
using hybrid PSOGA method.
Fig. 8. Values of the overall objective function using the hybrid PSOGA method.
Fig. 9. Average and minimum values of the overall objective function using hybrid
PSOGA method.
the first two generations, the spread of the objective values with
respect to the average was approximately one times the minimum
value. After that, the fluctuation of the difference between the minimum and the average was small and reached to zero, indicating
the final optimal solution was found. The best value found after
six generations was 4.71 with the average value of 4.79.
4.3. Comparison of basic GA and PSOGA
Fig. 6. Values of various objective functions using the hybrid PSOGA method.
682
Fig. 11a. Minimum of the PM objective function using basic GA and hybrid
PSOGA.
Fig. 10. Minimum and average objective values using basic GA and hybrid PSOGA.
Fig. 11b. Minimum of the NOx objective function using basic GA and hybrid
PSOGA.
Table 8
Best operating conditions for selected generations of hybrid PSOGA.
Parameter
Gen #2
Point 16
Gen #3
Point 24
Gen #4
Point 32
Gen #6
Point 48
EGR (%)
Fuel pressure (MPa)
Pilot timing (ATDC)
Pilot ratio (%)
Main SOI (ATDC)
43.5
175.6
8.19
47.0
3.28
48.8
174.2
3.19
45.4
1.72
49.1
173.9
2.17
45.0
2.74
49.9
173.9
1.81
44.9
3.10
Table 9
Optimal operating parameters and corresponding emissions found.
Parameter
Optimal value
by basic GA
Optimal value by
hybrid PSOGA
EGR (%)
Fuel pressure (MPa)
Pilot timing (ATDC)
Pilot ratio (%)
Main SOI (ATDC)
NOx (g/kW h)
HC (g/kW h)
CO (g/kW h)
PM (g/kW h)
BSFC (g/kW h)
48.7
172.1
2.06
41.7
3.11
0.850
0.190
3.08
0.0120
296.8
49.9
173.9
1.81
44.9
3.10
0.742
0.142
2.91
0.00742
289.1
683
Fig. 12. Comparison of in-cylinder pressure and heat release rate between each
generation for the hybrid PSOGA.
The authors acknowledge the support by John Deere Power Systems for this research.
References
Fig. 13. Comparison of the optimal in-cylinder pressure and heat release rate for GA
and hybrid PSOGA.
[1] Reitz RD. Directions in internal combustion engine research. Combust Flame
2013;160:18.
[2] Reiter AJ, Kong SC. Demonstration of compression-ignition engine combustion
using ammonia in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Fuels
2008;22:296371.
[3] Suh HK. Investigations of multiple injection strategies for the improvement of
combustion and exhaust emissions characteristics in a low compression ratio
(CR) engine. Appl Energy 2011;88:50139.
[4] Gonca G, Sahin B, Parlak A, Ust Y, Ayhan V, Cesur I, et al. Theoretical and
experimental investigation of the Miller cycle diesel engine in terms of
performance and emission parameters. Appl Energy 2015;138:1120.
[5] Squaiella LLF, Martins CA, Lacava PT. Strategies for emission control in diesel
engine to meet Euro VI. Fuel 2013;104:18393.
[6] Roy MM, Wang W, Bujold J. Biodiesel production and comparison of emissions
of a DI diesel engine fueled by biodieseldiesel and canola oildiesel blends at
high idling operations. Appl Energy 2013;106:198208.
[7] Sukuraman S, Kong SC. Numerical study on mixture formation characteristics
in a direct-injection hydrogen engine. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2010;35:79918007.
[8] Zhang L, Kong SC. Multicomponent vaporization modeling of bio-oil and its
mixtures with other fuels. Fuel 2012;95:47180.
[9] zener O, Yksek L, Ergen AT, zkan M. Effects of soybean biodiesel on a DI
diesel engine performance, emission and combustion characteristics. Fuel
2014;115:87583.
[10] Labecki L, Cairns A, Xia J, Megaritis A, Zhao H, Ganippa LC. Combustion and
emission of rapeseed oil blends in diesel engine. Appl Energy 2012;95:13946.
[11] Tesfa B, Mishra R, Zhang C, Gu F, Ball AD. Combustion and performance
characteristics of CI (compression ignition) engine running with biodiesel.
Energy 2013;51:10115.
[12] Kuzhiyil N, Kong SC. Energy recovery from waste plastics by using blends of
biodiesel and polystyrene in diesel engines. Energy Fuels 2009;23:324652.
[13] Varuvel EG, Mrad N, Tazerout M, Aloui F. Experimental analysis of biofuel as an
alternative fuel for diesel engines. Appl Energy 2012;94:22431.
[14] Tompkins BT, Song H, Bittle JA, Jacobs TJ. Efficiency considerations for the use
of blended biofuel in diesel engines. Appl Energy 2012;98:20918.
[15] Lenik L, Vajda B, Zuni Z, kerget L, Kegl B. The influence of biodiesel fuel on
injection characteristics, diesel engine performance, and emission formation.
Appl Energy 2013;111:55870.
[16] Reitz RD, Duraisamy G. Review of high efficiency and clean reactivity
controlled compression ignition (RCCI) combustion in internal combustion
engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2015;46:1271.
[17] Molina S, Garca A, Pastor JM, Belarte E, Balloul I. Operating range extension of
RCCI combustion concept from low to full load in a heavy-duty engine. Appl
Energy 2015;143:21127.
[18] Karra PK, Veltman MK, Kong SC. Characteristics of engine emissions using
biodiesel blends in low temperature combustion regimes. Energy Fuels
2008;22:376370.
[19] Asad U, Kumar R, Zheng M, Tjong J. Ethanol-fueled low temperature
combustion: a pathway to clean and efficient diesel engine cycles. Appl
Energy 2015;157:83850.
[20] Lu XC, Han D, Huang Z. Fuel design and management for the control of
advanced compression-ignition. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2011;37:74183.
[21] Kalogirou SA. Artificial intelligence for the modeling and control of
combustion processes: a review. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2003;29:51566.
[22] Lee DH, Park JS, Ryu MR, Park JH. Development of a highly efficient lowemission diesel engine-powered co-generation system and its optimization
using Taguchi method. Appl Therm Eng 2013;50:4915.
[23] Hirkude JB, Padalkar AS. Performance optimization of CI engine fuelled with
waste fried oil methyl ester-diesel blend using response surface methodology.
Fuel 2014;119:26673.
[24] Molina S, Guardiola C, Martn J, Garca-Sarmiento D. Development of a controloriented model to optimise fuel consumption and NOX emissions in a DI
Diesel engine. Appl Energy 2014;119:40516.
[25] Haupt RL, Haupt SE. Practical genetic algorithms. 2nd ed. New Jersey: WesleyInterscience; 2004.
684