Experimental Investigation of Octane Requirement Relaxation in A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF OCTANE REQUIREMENT RELAXATION IN A TURBOCHARGED SPARK-IGNITION ENGINE Thesis Submitted to The School of Engineering of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering By Jacob A. Baranski Dayton, Ohio August, 2013 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF OCTANE REQUIREMENT RELAXATION IN A TURBOCHARGED SPARK-IGNITION ENGINE Name: Baranski, Jacob Anthony APPROVED BY: Scott D. Stouffer, Ph.D. Frederick R. Schauer, Ph.D. Advisory Committee Chairman Committee Member Senior Research Engineer Head Energy and Environmental Engineering Advanced Concepts Group University of Dayton Research Institute U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory Sukh S. Sidhu, Ph.D. John L. Hoke, Ph.D. Committee Member Committee Member Head Senior Mechanical Engineer Energy Technologies and Materials Division Innovative Scientific Solutions Inc. University of Dayton Research Institute John G. Weber, Ph.D. Tony E. Saliba, Ph.D. Associate Dean Dean, School of Engineering School of Engineering & Wilke Distinguished Professor ii 1. ABSTRACT EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF OCTANE REQUIREMENT RELAXATION IN A TURBOCHARGED SPARK-IGNITION ENGINE Name: Baranski, Jacob Anthony University of Dayton Advisor: Scott D. Stouffer, Ph.D. Wide adoption of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) powered by spark ignition (SI) engines that require high-octane gasoline has triggered an increase in fuel costs incurred by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Most current United States Air Force (USAF) vehicles are fueled with JP-8, a low-octane kerosene-like fuel that is well suited for turbine engines. A relaxation in octane requirement is required to fuel current SI engines with a low-octane fuel like JP-8 and avoid destructive end-gas knock. In this thesis, a two-phase octane requirement study is conducted using a Rotax 914 four-cylinder turbocharged SI engine. In phase one, net indicated mean effective pressure (IMEPn) is characterized at typical cruise speeds as fuel octane number (ON) is varied on-the-fly using a dual port-fuel-injection (PFI) system. IMEPn is compared among dual-PFI blends from 20 to 87 ON, neat n-heptane, neat JP-8, and JP-8/iso-octane blends. A JP- 8/iso-octane demonstration is conducted to show the volume proportion of JP-8 that could be used to sustain flight. Results for typical cruise operation using JP-8/iso-octane blends show that a maximum volume flow proportion of 88% JP-8 at low-load cruise, and 40% at high-load cruise could be used to sustain flight. Although an impractical configuration, these results reveal iii that low-load neat JP-8 cruise is a possibility if the octane requirement of the Rotax 914 can be relaxed. The second phase of testing focuses on achieving full-load takeoff performance on 87 ON, since high-load operation is impractical with JP-8. The effects of intake air temperature (IAT), equivalence ratio, ignition timing, and dual-simultaneous ignition on knock are investigated. The combination of delayed combustion phasing with dual-simultaneous-ignition and increased equivalence ratio enables greater maximum IMEPn on 87 ON than the base configuration on 100 ON. To offset the additional fuel used for takeoff, a cruise fuel consumption study is conducted to characterize the reduction in indicated specific fuel consumption (ISFC) with an optimized fuel-lean, dual-simultaneous-ignition, and advanced ignition timing configuration compared to base conditions. The ISFC reduction in the optimized cruise configuration can directly offset the additional fuel used in the optimized 87 ON take-off configuration for flights as short as 4 hours. The 87 ON optimized cruise and take-off configurations can be combined to allow up to 3.5 additional hours of cruise. iv 2. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work would not have been completed without all the help that I have received along the way. I would like to thank John Hoke, Fred Schauer, and Sukh Sidhu of my committee for their encouragement and guidance throughout this process, especially my advisor Scott Stouffer. I would also like to thank the guys of SERL for all of their hard work: Paul Litke and Keith Grinstead for your technical guidance and making sure that things “just make sense” in the lab; Adam Brown for pushing me to keep fighting my engine gremlins even when they were winning and for not fat-fingering the controls too many times when we were running; Eric Anderson for pursuing high-quality data; Rich Ryman for coming through for me when I really needed it and putting up with me being so particular about everything; Sheldon (Joseph) Ausserer for your help with the PIC32, MATLAB code, and your general grammatical prowess. Thanks as well to Dave Burris, JR Groenewegen, Ben Naguy, Curtis Rice, and Justin Goffena for all of your help. A special thank you goes to my lovely wife Sarah Baranski for all of her support and encouragement throughout the last two years. I truly appreciate it. I would also like to thank the rest of my family for their love and support, and for not getting too upset when I wasn’t able to attend all of the family gatherings. Thanks to my dad, Ed Baranski, for always explaining how things work and for helping me develop “the knack”. Finally I would like to thank my Savior, Jesus Christ, for seeing fit to give me the skills and abilities to do this work, and for putting me in a place to do it. v 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... iii 2. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................... v 4. LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. x 5. LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. xvi 6. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS ..................................................................... xviii 1. 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 2. 2. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Engine Performance Metrics............................................................................ 4 2.1.1 Mean Effective Pressure ............................................................................ 4 2.1.2 Specific Fuel Consumption ......................................................................... 6 2.2 SI Combustion .................................................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Classification of Combustion ..................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Combustion Progress Characterization ..................................................... 7 2.2.3 Normal SI Combustion ............................................................................... 9 2.2.4 Abnormal SI Combustion ......................................................................... 11 2.3 Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition Combustion ............................ 36 2.4 Engine Control ................................................................................................ 38 vi 2.4.1 Fuel Injection Control .............................................................................. 38 2.4.2 Spark Ignition Control .............................................................................. 42 2.4.3 Automotive Engine Control Units ............................................................ 43 2.4.4 Flexible Research Engine Control Units ................................................... 44 3. 3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES – PHASE ONE ........................................................................ 46 4. 4. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP – PHASE ONE ......................................................................... 47 4.1 Rotax 914 Research Engine ............................................................................ 47 4.2 Engine Research Cell ...................................................................................... 49 4.3 Engine Control Unit ........................................................................................ 55 4.3.1 PIC18 Microcontroller .............................................................................. 55 4.3.2 Timing Signals .......................................................................................... 56 4.3.3 Interrupts ................................................................................................. 58 4.3.4 Spark Ignition Program ............................................................................ 59 4.3.5 Main Fuel Injection Program ................................................................... 60 4.3.6 Dual-fuel Injection Program ..................................................................... 62 4.4 Data Acquisition ............................................................................................. 63 4.4.1 Low-Speed Data Acquisition .................................................................... 63 4.4.2 High-Speed Data Acquisition ................................................................... 66 5. 5. RESULTS – PHASE ONE ............................................................................................... 76 5.1 PFI Blend Verification ....................................................................................