Applied Science, Faculty of
Mechanical Engineering, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Kastanis, Eric James
Master of Applied Science - MASc
University of British Columbia
Squish is one of the fundamental types of in-cylinder charge motion, and has been shown to be important in the generation of turbulence during the compression stroke. Turbulence intensity positively affects the mixture burning speed, which is important with inherently slow combustion systems, such as lean-burn. A previously proposed novel chamber design called ‘squish jet’ has been reported to further increase turbulence intensity compared with conventional combustion chamber designs. One bowl-in-piston (BIP) and two squish jet pistons (SJA and SJB), each with differing piston bowl geometry, were designed and built, and the operational characteristics of each were extensively investigated in an instrumented homogeneous-charge spark-ignition engine fueled by natural gas. The entire operating map of each chamber design was explored at 1500, 2000, and 2500 rpm and under naturally aspirated and supercharged inlet conditions (1.75 bar MAP). Test results showed that neither the SJA nor the SJB chamber conclusively exhibited superior brake thermal efficiency compared to the baseline BIP chamber. The observed differences were within the experimental uncertainty on the brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and air-fuel ratio parameters. Supplemental analysis of combustion heat release and exhaust hydrocarbon emission indicated that the SJA chamber exhibited the poorest BSFC performance. Because of uncertainty on BSFC and air-fuel ratio, NOx emission differences could neither be conclusively defined. The SJB chamber was found to result in the lowest exhaust hydrocarbon emission. Performance differences were similar under naturally aspirated and supercharged conditions. The main combustion duration of the three chambers was comparable, while the squish jet chambers exhibited longer ignition delay than the BIP chamber, and therefore favoured advanced ignition timing. Limit diagram analysis of the three chambers showed that the SJB chamber exhibited a limit space of comparable size to that of the BIP chamber, but was shifted toward advanced ignition timing. The SJA chamber limit space was similarly shifted, but was contracted in area. The results indicated that the difference in piston bowl geometry between the two squish jet chambers was as important as the addition of the jet-producing piston crown features in influencing combustion and engine performance.
JET SQUISH MOTION IN A HOMOGENEOUS-CHARGE SPARK-IGNITION ENGINE FUELED BY NATURAL GAS by ERIC JAMES KASTANIS B.A.Sc., The University of British Columbia, 2004 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Mechanical Engineering) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2010 !Eric James Kastanis, 2010 ii Abstract Squish is one of the fundamental types of in-cylinder charge motion, and has been shown to be important in the generation of turbulence during the compression stroke. Turbulence intensity positively affects the mixture burning speed, which is important with inherently slow combustion systems, such as lean-burn. A previously proposed novel chamber design called ?squish jet? has been reported to further increase turbulence intensity compared with conventional combustion chamber designs. One bowl-in-piston (BIP) and two squish jet pistons (SJA and SJB), each with differing piston bowl geometry, were designed and built, and the operational characteristics of each were extensively investigated in an instrumented homogeneous-charge spark-ignition engine fueled by natural gas. The entire operating map of each chamber design was explored at 1500, 2000, and 2500 rpm and under naturally aspirated and supercharged inlet conditions (1.75 bar MAP). Test results showed that neither the SJA nor the SJB chamber conclusively exhibited superior brake thermal efficiency compared to the baseline BIP chamber. The observed differences were within the experimental uncertainty on the brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and air-fuel ratio parameters. Supplemental analysis of combustion heat release and exhaust hydrocarbon emission indicated that the SJA chamber exhibited the poorest BSFC performance. Because of uncertainty on BSFC and air-fuel ratio, NOx emission differences could neither be conclusively defined. The SJB chamber was found to iii result in the lowest exhaust hydrocarbon emission. Performance differences were similar under naturally aspirated and supercharged conditions. The main combustion duration of the three chambers was comparable, while the squish jet chambers exhibited longer ignition delay than the BIP chamber, and therefore favoured advanced ignition timing. Limit diagram analysis of the three chambers showed that the SJB chamber exhibited a limit space of comparable size to that of the BIP chamber, but was shifted toward advanced ignition timing. The SJA chamber limit space was similarly shifted, but was contracted in area. The results indicated that the difference in piston bowl geometry between the two squish jet chambers was as important as the addition of the jet-producing piston crown features in influencing combustion and engine performance. iv Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................ii!Table of Contents.................................................................................iv!List of Tables .....................................................................................viii!List of Figures .....................................................................................xii!List of Abbreviations..........................................................................xvi!List of Symbols...................................................................................xix!List of Units ......................................................................................xxii!Acknowledgements ...........................................................................xxiv!Chapter 1 ? Introduction ......................................................................1!1.1 Shift to Natural Gas Fuel ......................................................................2!1.2 Spark-Ignition Engine ............................................................................4!1.2.1 Lean Burn Strategy .......................................................................................... 5!1.2.2 Charge Motion and Turbulence ........................................................................ 7!1.2.3 Squish Jet Piston Design .................................................................................. 9!1.3 Objectives............................................................................................. 10!1.4 Structure and Organization of Thesis .................................................. 11!Chapter 2 ? Background and Literature Review ................................ 13!2.1 Natural Gas Fuel.................................................................................. 13!2.1.1 Stoichiometry...................................................................................................14!2.1.2 Laminar Flame Speed ......................................................................................15!2.2 Air-fuel Ratio and Engine Performance and Exhaust Emissions ......... 16!2.3 Turbulence Intensity............................................................................ 19! v 2.4 Turbulent Combustion......................................................................... 20!2.5 Turbulence Generation in IC Engines.................................................. 23!2.6 Squish Jet............................................................................................. 28!Chapter 3 ? Experimental Apparatus ................................................. 33!3.1 Ricardo Hydra Engine.......................................................................... 33!3.2 Cylinder Head ...................................................................................... 34!3.3 Pistons.................................................................................................. 34!3.3.1 Baseline Pistons ...............................................................................................36!3.3.2 Squish Jet Pistons............................................................................................37!3.4 Fuel System.......................................................................................... 40!3.5 Ignition System .................................................................................... 41!3.6 Engine Control ..................................................................................... 46!3.7 Cell Services......................................................................................... 47!3.7.1 Fuel..................................................................................................................47!3.7.2 Water...............................................................................................................48!3.7.3 Air Handling ....................................................................................................49!3.7.4 Exhaust............................................................................................................50!3.7.5 Dynamometer ..................................................................................................50!3.8 Data Acquisition Hardware and Software............................................ 51!3.8.1 Analog Signal Conditioning Modules...............................................................51!3.8.2 Server PC ........................................................................................................51!3.8.3 Client PC.........................................................................................................52!3.9 Instrumentation ................................................................................... 53!3.9.1 Low Speed Instrumentation.............................................................................53!3.9.2 Cylinder Pressure Measurement ......................................................................56!3.9.3 Exhaust Emissions Measurement.....................................................................57 vi Chapter 4 ? Data Processing and Analysis ......................................... 60!4.1 Low-Speed Data Processing ................................................................. 60!4.2 Cylinder Pressure Data Processing ...................................................... 64!4.3 Uncertainty Analysis............................................................................ 68!Chapter 5 ? Experimental Results and Discussion ............................. 73!5.1 Methodology ........................................................................................ 73!5.2 Engine Compression Pressure and Brake Torque Verification ............ 79!5.3 Minimum NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off .................................................. 81!5.4 Combustion Stability and Air-Fuel Ratio ............................................ 87!5.5 Gaseous Emissions, Thermal Efficiency versus Air-Fuel Ratio ............ 91!5.6 Gaseous Emissions versus Thermal Efficiency ..................................... 98!5.7 Lean Limit Performance..................................................................... 106!5.8 Combustion Chamber Limit Space .................................................... 111!5.9 In-Cylinder Analysis .......................................................................... 114!5.10 Discussion of Results ........................................................................ 122!5.10.1 Compression and Engine Health ..................................................................122!5.10.2 Brake Specific Fuel Consumption ................................................................123!5.10.3 Brake Specific Exhaust Emissions................................................................125!5.10.4 Lean Limit Operation ..................................................................................127!5.10.5 In-cylinder Analysis .....................................................................................128!5.10.6 Limit Space ..................................................................................................130!Chapter 6 ? Conclusions and Recommendations .............................. 131!6.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 131!6.2 Recommendations .............................................................................. 136!Bibliography...................................................................................... 139!Appendix A ? Data Processing Routines .......................................... 145! vii A.1 Low-Speed Data Processing Routine................................................. 145!A.2 Cylinder Pressure Data Processing Routine ..................................... 157!Appendix B ? Ideal Squish Velocity Model ...................................... 164!Appendix C ? Combustion Chamber Drawings ................................ 168!Appendix D ? Uncertainty Calculation Methodology....................... 175!Appendix E ? Experimental Data ..................................................... 179! viii List of Tables Table 2.1 ? Natural Gas Composition..................................................................13!Table 2.2 ? Fuel Properties ..................................................................................14!Table 3.1 ? Engine Specifications.........................................................................33!Table 3.2 ? Piston Geometric Parameters............................................................36!Table 3.3 ? List of Instruments............................................................................54!Table 4.1 ? Engine Operating Points for Experimental Result Uncertainty Analysis.........................................................................................................70!Table 4.2 ? Uncertainty Values for Performance Parameters at Selected Data Points ............................................................................................................71!Table 5.1 ? BIP Operational Points for NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 1500 rpm/NA......................................................................................................................81!Table 5.2 ? Ignition Timing Advance Limit, 1500 rpm/NA ................................88!Table 5.3 ? Ignition Timing Range & Resultant ? for Constant Fuel Mass Flow Rate ..............................................................................................................99!Table 5.4 ? Lean Limit Fuel Mass Flow & Resulting ? .....................................107!Table 5.5 ? Fuel Mass Flow and Resulting ? at Leanest Operation...................108!Table 5.6 ? Performance & Combustion Parameters, 1500 rpm/NA, 0.780 kg/hr Fuel Flow ....................................................................................................116!Table 5.7 ? Performance & Combustion Parameters, 2000 rpm/NA, 0.981 kg/hr Fuel Flow ....................................................................................................120!Table E.1 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 ..............180!Table E.2 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 ..............181!Table E.3 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1.............182!Table E.4 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2.............183! ix Table E.5 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 ..............184!Table E.6 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 ..............185!Table E.7 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1.............186!Table E.8 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2.............187!Table E.9 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 ..............188!Table E.10 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2.............189!Table E.11 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1...........190!Table E.12 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2...........191!Table E.13 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 .............192!Table E.14 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 .............193!Table E.15 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/SC, Points 31 ? 45: Part 1............194!Table E.16 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/SC, Points 31 ? 45: Part 2............195!Table E.17 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 .............196!Table E.18 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 .............197!Table E.19 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/SC, Points 31 ? 46: Part 1............198!Table E.20 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/SC, Points 31 ? 46: Part 2............199!Table E.21 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1.............200!Table E.22 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2.............201!Table E.23 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1...........202!Table E.24 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2...........203!Table E.25 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1.............204!Table E.26 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2.............205!Table E.27 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1...........206!Table E.28 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2...........207!Table E.29 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1.............208!Table E.30 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2.............209! x Table E.31 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1...........210!Table E.32 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2...........211!Table E.33 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 .............212!Table E.34 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 .............213!Table E.35 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/SC, Points 31 ? 45: Part 1............214!Table E.36 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/SC, Points 31 ? 45: Part 2............215!Table E.37 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 .............216!Table E.38 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 .............217!Table E.39 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/SC, Points 31 ? 47: Part 1............218!Table E.40 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/SC, Points 31 ? 47: Part 2............219!Table E.41 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/NA, Points 1 ? 32: Part 1 ............220!Table E.42 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/NA, Points 1 ? 32: Part 2 ............221!Table E.43 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/NA, Points 33 ? 63: Part 1...........222!Table E.44 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/NA, Points 33 ? 63: Part 2...........223!Table E.45 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 ............224!Table E.46 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 ............225!Table E.47 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1...........226!Table E.48 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2...........227!Table E.49 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 ............228!Table E.50 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 ............229!Table E.51 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1...........230!Table E.52 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2...........231!Table E.53 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 .............232!Table E.54 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 .............233!Table E.55 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/SC, Points 31 ? 45: Part 1 ...........234!Table E.56 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/SC, Points 31 ? 45: Part 2 ...........235! xi Table E.57 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 .............236!Table E.58 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 .............237!Table E.59 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/SC, Points 31 ? 47: Part 1 ...........238!Table E.60 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/SC, Points 31 ? 47: Part 2 ...........239! xii List of Figures Figure 1.1 ? Squish Motion ................................................................................... 9!Figure 2.1 ? Exhaust Emission Concentration, Output, and Efficiency with Air-fuel Ratio ......................................................................................................19!Figure 2.2 ? Zone Boundary for Squish Velocity Model.......................................25!Figure 2.3 ? Normalized Squish Velocity for BIP & SJ Chambers ......................26!Figure 3.1 ? Two-piece Piston..............................................................................35!Figure 3.2 ? BIP Piston Crown Isometric View ...................................................37!Figure 3.3 ? Squish Jet ?A? Piston Crown Isometric View ...................................39!Figure 3.4 ? Squish Jet ?B? Piston Crown Isometric View ...................................39!Figure 3.5 ? Ignition System Peak and Hold Current ..........................................43!Figure 3.6 ? Ignition System Input Section Circuit Diagram...............................43!Figure 3.7 ? Ignition System Peak/Hold Section Circuit Diagram ......................44!Figure 3.8 ? Ignition System Logic Diagram........................................................45!Figure 3.9 ? Ignition System Output Circuit Diagram.........................................46!Figure 4.1 ? log(P) ? log(v) Diagram...................................................................66!Figure 4.2 ? Propagation Of Uncertainty Through Compound Calculation ........70!Figure 5.1 ? Data Collection Map, 1500 rpm/NA................................................76!Figure 5.2 ? Data Collection Map, 2000 rpm/NA................................................77!Figure 5.3 ? Data Collection Map, 2500 rpm/NA................................................77!Figure 5.4 ? Data Collection Map, 1500 rpm/SC.................................................78!Figure 5.5 ? Data Collection Map, 2000 rpm/SC.................................................78!Figure 5.6 ? Mean Peak Cylinder Pressure, 1500 rpm, 50% Throttle, Motoring .79!Figure 5.7 ? Brake Torque, 1500 rpm, 50% Throttle, 0.730 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow Rate ..............................................................................................................80! xiii Figure 5.8 ? NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 1500 rpm/NA ......................................82!Figure 5.9 ? NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 2000 rpm/NA ......................................83!Figure 5.10 ? NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 2500 rpm/NA ....................................83!Figure 5.11 ? NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 1500 rpm/SC .....................................84!Figure 5.12 ? NOx -Efficiency Trade-off, 2000 rpm/SC.......................................84!Figure 5.13 ? NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 1500 rpm/SC with Experimental Uncertainty ...................................................................................................86!Figure 5.14 ? NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 1500 rpm/NA with Experimental Uncertainty ...................................................................................................86!Figure 5.15 ? COV of GIMEP, 1500 rpm/NA, Advanced Timing .......................89!Figure 5.16 ? COV of GIMEP, 1500 rpm/SC, Advanced Timing........................90!Figure 5.17 ? BSFC, 1500 rpm/NA, Advanced Timing .......................................92!Figure 5.18 ? BSFC, 1500 rpm/NA, Retarded Timing ........................................92!Figure 5.19 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 1500 rpm/NA, Advanced Timing......................................................................................................................94!Figure 5.20 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 1500 rpm/NA, Retarded Timing......................................................................................................................94!Figure 5.21 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 2500 rpm/NA, Advanced Timing......................................................................................................................95!Figure 5.22 ? BSFC, 1500 rpm/SC, Advanced Timing ........................................97!Figure 5.23 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 1500 rpm/SC, Advanced Timing......................................................................................................................97!Figure 5.24 ? Brake Specific Emission Species, 1500 rpm/NA, 0.780 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow ...................................................................................................100!Figure 5.25 ? Brake Specific Emissions Species, 1500 rpm/NA, 0.757 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow ...................................................................................................100! xiv Figure 5.26 ? Brake Specific Emissions Species, 2000 rpm/NA, 0.981 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow ...................................................................................................102!Figure 5.27 ? Brake Specific Emissions Species, 2000 rpm/NA, 0.912 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow ...................................................................................................102!Figure 5.28 ? Brake Specific Emissions Species, 2500 rpm/NA, 1.330 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow ...................................................................................................104!Figure 5.29 ? Brake Specific Emissions Species, 2500 rpm/NA, 1.285 kg/hr .....104!Figure 5.30 ? Brake Specific Emissions Species, 1500 rpm/SC, 1.500 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow ...................................................................................................105!Figure 5.31 ? Brake Specific Emission Species, 2000 rpm/SC, 1.747 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow ...................................................................................................105!Figure 5.32 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 1500 rpm/NA, Lean Limit ....107!Figure 5.33 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 2000 rpm/NA, 0.876 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow ...................................................................................................109!Figure 5.34 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 2500 rpm/NA, 1.250 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow ...................................................................................................110!Figure 5.35 ? Limit Space for BIP Chamber, 1500 rpm/NA..............................111!Figure 5.36 ? Limit Diagram, 1500 rpm/NA......................................................112!Figure 5.37 ? Limit Diagram, 2000 rpm/NA......................................................113!Figure 5.38 ? Limit Diagram, 2500 rpm/NA......................................................114!Figure 5.39 ? Ignition Delay & Combustion Duration, 1500 rpm/NA, 0.780 kg/hr Fuel Flow ....................................................................................................117!Figure 5.40 ? Cylinder Pressure, 1500 rpm/NA, BSFC ~ 233 g/kWh...............118!Figure 5.41 ? Heat Release Rate, 1500 rpm/NA, BSFC ~ 233 g/kWh..............119!Figure 5.42 ? Ignition Delay & Combustion Duration, 2000 rpm/NA, 0.981 kg/hr Fuel Flow ....................................................................................................119! xv Figure 5.43 ? Cylinder Pressure, 2000 rpm/NA, BSFC ~250 g/kWh ................121!Figure 5.44 ? Heat Release Rate, 2000 rpm/NA, BSFC ~250 g/kWh ...............121!Figure C.1 ? Bowl-in-Piston (BIP) Piston Crown..............................................169!Figure C.2 ? Squish Jet 'A' (SJA) Piston Crown...............................................170!Figure C.3 ? Squish Jet 'B' (SJB) Piston Crown...............................................171!Figure C.4 ? Cylinder Head Internal Geometry .................................................172!Figure C.5 ? Cylinder Head External Geometry ................................................173!Figure C.6 ? Cylinder Head Port Geometry ......................................................174! xvi List of Abbreviations ATDC ? After top dead centre BDC ? Bottom dead centre BIP ? Bowl-in-piston BMEP ? Brake mean effective pressure BSCH4 ? Brake specific methane BSCO ? Brake specific carbon monoxide BSNOx ? Brake specific oxides of nitrogen BSFC ? Brake specific fuel consumption BTE ? Brake thermal efficiency CDI ? Capactive discharge ignition CI ? Compression ignition CLD ? Chemiluminescence detector CH4 ? Methane CO ? Carbon monoxide CO2 ? Carbon dioxide COV ? Coefficient of variation DC ? Direct current EMF ? Electromotive force EVC ? Exhaust valve close EVO ? Exhaust valve open FID ? Flame ionization detector FS ? Full scale GIMEP ? gross indicated mean effective pressure GUI ? Graphical user interface xvii H2 ? Molecular hydrogen HC ? Hydrocarbon HWA ? Hot-wire anemometry IC ? Internal combustion IMEP ? Indicated mean effective pressure IVC ? Intake valve close IVO ? Intake valve open LDV ? Laser Doppler velocimetry LFE ? Laminar flow element LHV ? Lower heating value LPG ? Liquefied petroleum gas MAP ? Manifold absolute pressure MBT ? Maximum brake torque N2 ? Molecular nitrogen NA ? Naturally aspirated NDIR ? Non-dispersive infrared nmHC ? Non-methane hydrocarbon NIMEP ? Net indicated mean effective pressure NOx ? Oxides of nitrogen PC ? Personal computer PIV ? Particle image velocimetry PM ? Particulate matter PMEP ? Pumping mean effective pressure RAFR ? Relative air-fuel ratio RICM ? Rapid intake & compression machine SAE ? Society of Automotive Engineers xviii SC ? Supercharged SI ? Spark-ignition SJA ? Squish jet ?A? SJB ? Squish jet ?B? TCP/IP ? Transmission control protocol/internet protocol TDC ? Top dead centre UEGO ? Universal exhaust gas oxygen WOT ? Wide-open throttle xix List of Symbols ! AL ? laminar flame frontal area ! AT ? turbulent flame frontal area ! ( A / F ) ? air-fuel ratio ! (A /F)stoich ? stoichiometric air-fuel ratio ! B ? bore ! c ? ? viscosity correction factor ! CB ? carbon balance ! d b ? piston bowl opening diameter ! D ? molecular diffusivity ! Da ? turbulent Damk?hler number ! K ? emissions wet-dry conversion factor ! K H ? NOx humidity correction factor ! l I ? integral length scale ! l K ? Kolmogorov length scale ! ! ? connecting rod length ! m.air ? wet air mass flow rate ! m.air,dry ? dry air mass flow rate ! m b ? mass burned ! M C ? molecular weight of atomic carbon ! M H ? molecular weight of atomic hydrogen ! MH 2 O ? molecular weight of water ! M T H C ? molecular weight of exhaust hydrocarbon ! p air , dry ? dry air pressure xx ! pH 2 O ? partial pressure of water ! p sat , H 2 O ? saturation pressure of water ! p tot ? total air pressure ! P ? pressure ! "PLFE ? laminar flow element delta pressure ! Q ? heat ! r s ? squish area ratio ! R air ? specific gas constant for air ! R ? universal gas constant ! S ? stroke ! S L ? laminar burning speed ! S L0 ? reference laminar burning speed ! S T ? turbulent burning speed ! t ? time ! T ? temperature ! u ? turbulent velocity fluctuation ! u * ? total velocity fluctuation ! u ' ? RMS fluctuation intensity ! U ? flow velocity ! U ? mean flow velocity ! U EA ? ensemble averaged flow velocity ! V ? cylinder volume ! V c ? clearance volume ! V.air ? air volume flow rate ! " L ? flame thickness xxi ! " ? ratio of specific heats ! " ? crank angle ? ? lambda (see RAFR) ! ?std ? standard viscosity of air ! ? f ? viscosity of combustion air ! " ? kinematic viscosity ! " ? pi ! "air ? air density ! "u ? unburned charge density ! "L ? characteristic chemical reaction time ! "T ?characteristic eddy turnover time ! " ? specific humidity of air xxii List of Units A ? amperes BCF ? billion cubic feet dB ? decibel degCA ? crank angle degree g ? gram GJ ? gigajoule GW ? gigawatt h ? hour H/C ? hydrogen to carbon ratio Hz ? hertz in ? inch kg ? kilogram kHz ? kilohertz kPa ? kilopascal kW ? kilowatt m ? metre mm ? millimetre MMbbl ? million barrels MPa ? megapascal ms ? millisecond Mt ? megatonne ?C ? degree Celsius pC ? picocoulomb ppm ? part per million xxiii rpm ? revolutions per minute s ? second slm ? standard litres per minute TJ ? terajoule V ? volt VAC ? volt alternating current VDC ? volt direct current xxiv Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Robert L. Evans, for giving me the opportunity to pursue a graduate degree at this institution, and for his help over the course. I am greatly indebted to Jean-Michel Logan for his assistance with the CAD design of the various piston geometries and for the orientation to the laboratory, to Roland Genschorek for his expert machining skills in fabricating the pistons, to Bob Parry and Erik Wilson for advice and assistance with test cell and engine mechanical work, and to Sean Buxton and Glen Jolly for their help with the numerous electronic challenges with which I was faced. I am grateful to Conor Reynolds for having taken time to discuss the build history of the Hydra engine with me. I also owe thanks to Parry Yabuno for all the help with purchasing equipment and supplies, and to Ning Wu for sharing his expertise with the emissions bench. I would also like to acknowledge my colleagues Amir Abbas Aliabadi, Edward Chan, James Saunders, and Malcolm Shield for their help in contemplating various aspects of graduate education. Recognition also goes to Mahdi Salehi for the engaging conversations on turbulent combustion. Finally, I would like to thank the other two members of my examining committee, Dr. Steven N. Rogak and Dr. Savvas Hatzikiriakos, for the advice they provided at my numerous requests. 1 Chapter 1 ? Introduction Since the advent of the internal combustion engine, efforts have been continuously expended to improve the thermal efficiency and performance of the machine. Early in the development of the reciprocating piston engine, work focused on increasing output. Thermodynamic analysis of the engine cycle indicated that fuel-specific output could be increased by means of an increase in the geometric expansion ratio of the engine cylinder[1]. Practical considerations now place a limit on this technique, and many other methods have since been employed to increase output, the most basic among them being increased engine speed and supercharging. As the piston engine has grown more pervasive, interest in improving its multitude of operational characteristics has come from industry, academia, as well as laypersons, perhaps to an extent experienced with no other innovation in the last several centuries. Engine performance is a vague term, which has evolved from referring solely to output, to encompass many other parameters such as exhaust emissions, noise, transient behaviour, and the ability to operate over a range of speed and load conditions. Today, the principal fuels for reciprocating piston engines are the petroleum-derived motor gasolines and distillate fuel oils, or diesel fuel. In 2009, the consumption of motor gasoline in the United States was 8.99 MMbbl/day, and of diesel fuel in the transport and industrial sectors was 3.63 MMbbl/day[2]. This represents approximately 62 TJ/day or 718 GW of thermal power input into reciprocating piston engines, an increase of 7% over the value from a decade earlier. While a small portion of diesel fuel in the industrial sector is consumed in 2 devices other than reciprocating piston engines, a similar amount is used in engines in the electric power generation sector, which is separate and not considered here. At retail prices for motor gasoline and on-highway diesel fuel, the cost for fuel consumed in the transportation sector is over $1 billion per day in real 2009 US dollars. Thus, modest improvements in engine fuel consumption can result in significant economic cost savings. 1.1 Shift to Natural Gas Fuel Over the last several decades, a number of factors have prompted a surge of investigation into technologies to enable the use of alternatives to petroleum-derived products as fuels for internal combustion engines. In the past, energy security was perhaps the primary concern. The 1973 oil crisis drove crude oil prices to previously never before seen levels. Legislators responded by enacting measures to reduce fuel consumption, such as reduced road speed limits[3], while manufacturers responded by reducing size and power output of motor vehicle engines. Several years later, exhaust emissions became a primary focus, and efforts were expended to reduce the emission of air pollutants from internal combustion engines[4,5]. Leading the efforts to force reductions in pollutant emissions from internal combustion engines were US legislators, focusing primarily on engines in passenger and transport vehicles. Currently controlled emissions species from internal combustion engines in the United States include oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), non-methane hydrocarbons (nmHC), and particulate matter (PM). At the time of writing, exhaust emissions standards in the United States for engines and vehicles in on-road use have stabilized[4], while those in the off-road sector are becoming ever more 3 stringent[6,7,8]. In recent years, CO2 emission has come under increased focus in the vehicle industry both in the United States and Europe[9,10], which will undoubtedly influence the direction of engine development in the future. Natural gas is becoming more attractive as a motor fuel because of ample North American reserves[2], as well as its significantly lower carbon content than traditional petroleum derived fuels. Based on fuel lower heating value (LHV) and molar hydrogen to carbon ratio (H/C), an internal combustion engine operating at a given brake thermal efficiency (BTE) will emit approximately 20-25% less CO2 by mass for an equivalent unit of work output when fueled with natural gas rather than conventional petroleum gasoline. In 2009, natural gas comprised only 3% of the energy used in the transportation sector, predominantly as a fuel for pipeline compressors, representing an equal percentage of total natural gas consumption in the United States. In the US in 2008, gasoline and diesel fuel combustion in the transportation sector was responsible for the emission of 1571.3 Mt of CO2[11]. This amounted to roughly 28% of the total 5572.8 Mt emitted across all sectors from energy use. Natural gas combustion in the transportation sector comprised 669 BCF/day or 23 GW, and resulted in 35.8 Mt of CO2 emission. Therefore for each GW of thermal energy input in the transportation sector shifted from motor gasoline and diesel fuel to natural gas, between 0.58 and 0.72 Mt of CO2 emissions could be avoided annually. In addition, natural gas prices have been historically lower than those for petroleum fuels on a per unit energy basis. In 2008 in the US, the real dollar cost of natural gas was roughly $10.85/GJ, compared to between $18.50 and $18.80/GJ for petroleum fuels. While future trends for fuel costs are speculative, at present, a shift to natural gas fuel could generate a cost savings in addition to CO2 emission avoidance. 4 1.2 Spark-Ignition Engine The two prevalent combustion systems in use in reciprocating piston engines are spark ignition (SI) and compression ignition (CI). The principal difference between the two is the mechanism by which ignition of fuel takes place; the CI system relies on the autoignition properties of the fuel introduced into the air in the engine cylinder which has been heated by compression, whereas the SI system makes use of a timed electric spark discharge to achieve ignition. Numerous methods are available for delivery of fuel to a SI engine, including carburetion, inlet manifold or throttle body fumigation or injection, intake port injection, and direct injection into the engine cylinder; which of these is selected for use in a particular engine depends on the operational requirements. CI engines currently require injection of the fuel into the engine cylinder, either directly, or indirectly via a prechamber. Fuel delivery equipment is generally less expensive on a SI engine, even in the case of direct injection equipment, owing primarily to the lower fuel system pressures. As a result of this fundamental difference in the ignition mechanism, the variety of fuels that can be used in a SI engine is much broader. Any fuel whose volatility and flammability characteristics are such that a viable mixture with air can be delivered to the engine cylinder will suffice for combustion in a SI engine provided the ignition energy is adequate. SI engines have been successfully fueled with gasoline, methanol, ethanol, gasoline-alcohol blends, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gases (LPG), as well as more exotic fuels such as nitromethane and hydrogen. On the other hand, the fuels suitable for combustion in a CI engine are more limited, namely distillate oil or diesel fuel and heavy bunker oil. One 5 manufacturer has been successful in obtaining an on-road emissions certification in the United States for a CI engine operating on natural gas[12], but has not developed a method for causing autoignition of natural gas fuel under prevailing in-cylinder conditions. Rather, this engine makes use of a pilot injection of diesel fuel in a dual fuel system, resulting in increased complexity and elevated cost of the fuel injection equipment. 1.2.1 Lean Burn Strategy As was mentioned in the previous section, any air-fuel mixture whose strength is within the flammability limits under the in-cylinder conditions at the time of ignition can be introduced for combustion in a SI engine. As such, there are two primary mixture formation regimes employed with SI engines: stoichiometric and lean. Stoichiometric refers to the mixture strength obtained when exactly the required amount of air is introduced with the fuel for combustion. Lean refers to any mixture strength with an excess of air. Stoichiometric mixtures result in the formation of exhaust with very low oxygen concentration, which allows the use of a three-way catalyst for exhaust aftertreatment. The three-way catalyst allows simultaneous oxidation of CO & HC, and reduction of NOx. In practice, meticulous modulation of the air-fuel ratio within a narrow range about the stoichiometric point is required to maintain adequate catalyst conversion efficiency. Lean mixtures result in exhaust gas with significant exhaust oxygen concentrations, and as such post-combustion reduction of NOx is not possible. 6 However combustion of sufficiently lean mixtures results in diminished NOx concentration, as well as very low CO concentration. If required, an oxidation catalyst may be employed for HC aftertreatment. An additional benefit of combustion of lean mixtures is that the maximum fuel conversion efficiency is encountered in the presence of excess air. For this reason, higher thermal efficiency may be realized when operating under lean conditions rather than under stoichiometric, depending on the degree of excess air. Furthermore, lean operation presents the possibility of controlling engine load by fueling rate, enabling a reduction in the degree of engine throttling required, thereby reducing pumping losses. The implications of air-fuel ratio on engine combustion and emissions will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, but in summary, the lean burn strategy offers the possibility of higher fuel conversion efficiency, reduced pumping work, as well as lower engine-out toxic exhaust emissions. The challenges of lean operation are higher engine-out HC emissions and combustion instability at extremely lean air-fuel ratios. In addition, combustion of lean mixtures results in reduced burning speed, which is detrimental to thermal efficiency. Realizing the benefits while overcoming the inherent drawbacks is a fundamental challenge in lean burn engine development. The design of fast-burning combustion chambers can alleviate some of the difficulties associated with combustion of lean mixtures. 7 1.2.2 Charge Motion and Turbulence In-cylinder charge motion plays an important role in mixture preparation and combustion development. Bulk charge motion aids in homogenization of the mixture in spark-ignition engines, which ensures proper mixture strength and uniform combustion characteristics throughout the flame path. An additional effect of bulk charge motion is to induce turbulence in the mixture by means of shear in the in-cylinder flow field. Shear forces in the flow induce the development of turbulent eddies, which initially form at scales on the order of the in-cylinder geometry. Because of their unstable nature, these break down into a cascade of smaller and smaller eddies until their characteristic size is small enough that the energy they possess can be dissipated by molecular viscosity. Associated with the cascade of turbulent eddies of varying characteristic length scale and turnover time is augmentation of various fluid transport phenomena such as heat and momentum transfer. As will be seen in chapter 2, this effect has important consequences for combustion. The three fundamental types of in-cylinder charge motion are tumble, swirl, and squish. Tumble is a bulk rotational flow of the charge about an axis perpendicular to that of the intake port, and is heavily influenced by intake port geometry. Tumble can be likened to the charge undergoing a barrel roll as it enters the cylinder. This type of charge motion can be enhanced by structures in the intake port, and as such is used in high-speed spark-ignition engines to increase the magnitude of the velocity field at high engine speeds when short combustion duration is vital to maintaining output. Swirl is a bulk charge motion about the cylinder axis, and is also created by particular intake port geometry. 8 Because of the direction of swirl rotation, its intensity can be preserved during the compression stroke through conservation of angular momentum. Both tumble and swirl motions result in elevated shear forces in the flow field, and give rise to turbulent dissipation during the late stages of the intake process and into the compression process. Tumble and swirl are generated only during the intake process, and their production depends firmly on cylinder head design. Squish refers to the radially inward or transverse charge motion caused by the piston approaching the cylinder head near top dead centre (TDC) on the compression stroke[13]. In order to produce squish, the clearance volume of the cylinder must be unevenly distributed over the cylinder area. It is as a result of differences in clearance between the cylinder head and piston crown surface that cause charge to flow from one region of the cylinder to another as the piston moves toward the cylinder head. The squish area is that in which the piston most closely approaches the cylinder head. Squish motion is illustrated in figure 1.1. Squish motion may be achieved either by design of the piston crown or cylinder head geometry, and as will be discussed in the next chapter, the intensity and profile of the squish velocity can be influenced by geometric parameters. 9 Figure 1.1 ? Squish Motion 1.2.3 Squish Jet Piston Design ?Squish jet piston? refers to a piston design patented by Evans[14,15,16] whereby the squish motion is directed into jets by a plurality of discrete channels circumferentially spaced around a central cavity in the piston. Squish jet designs include those with closed channels internally contained in the piston, as well as those with open channels on the piston compression face. The basic intent of the squish jet piston is to direct the squish motion into a series of jets in a radially inward direction with a higher velocity than would have been encountered had the squish motion proceeded in a radially uniform fashion. The jets may then impinge on one another resulting in decay of the charge motion into smaller scale turbulence, which is beneficial to flame propagation. Further discussion of the effects of squish motion and the influence of the squish jet piston design is held 10 over to the next chapter where it can be presented in a cohesive manner along with other pertinent background information and previous studies as they relate to this work. Specific geometric details of the squish jet chambers considered in this work are revealed in chapter 3 and in appendix C. 1.3 Objectives In this work, a comparative review is made of three different combustion chambers for an SI engine operating on natural gas fuel in the lean combustion regime. One chamber is a conventional bowl-in-piston (BIP) type commonly applied to lean burn natural gas engines. The other two chambers are squish jet designs, which are substantially similar to one another save for the central cavity geometry. A single-cylinder research engine is operated over the entire possible range of lean air-fuel ratio and ignition timing with each combustion chamber, and the effect of chamber design on performance and exhaust emissions of the engine in the context of influenced in-cylinder charge motion is discussed. Specifically, the following questions are addressed: 1. Does the squish jet chamber result in benefits to engine performance? i. Is there a significant improvement in fuel consumption? ii. Are there significant improvements in engine-out NOx and CH4 emissions? 2. How does the squish jet chamber influence the operating space in terms of possible range of air-fuel ratio and ignition timing? i. Is the lean operation limit extended? 11 3. Does the squish jet chamber provide for improved combustion quality by means of increased turbulence intensity? i. Is the combustion duration decreased? ii. How is the ignition delay period affected? 4. Are operational differences observed with squish jet chambers under naturally aspirated inlet conditions similarly so observed under supercharged inlet conditions? Where possible, observed results are analyzed from the perspective of the combustion process in terms of heat release and other parameters derived from cylinder pressure data. Conclusions are drawn based on the experimental results, and recommendations for further investigation are made. 1.4 Structure and Organization of Thesis The thesis is divided into five chapters subsequent to this introductory chapter. Chapter 2 provides the necessary background information and discusses relevant early work related to turbulent combustion in SI engines, the influence of squish on combustion and performance, and previous studies into the effects of squish jet chamber designs on the in-cylinder flow field and combustion. Chapter 3 expounds the experimental apparatus and set-up. In particular, the geometry of the chamber designs is detailed, as well as those of the engine control, instrumentation, and data acquisition system. In chapter 4, the data processing methodology is discussed, and certain calculated engine performance parameters are explained. Chapter 5 is a presentation of selected experimental results, with discussion of the results in context of the background provided in chapter 2. 12 Conclusions based on the work are provided in chapter 6, along with recommendations for future work. 13 Chapter 2 ? Background and Literature Review In order to interpret the results of this experimental work, some background and review of previous work is necessary. The natural gas fuel will be discussed, as well as the effects of air-fuel ratio on SI engine operation. The concept of turbulence will be briefly reviewed, and the role of turbulence in flame development and propagation and its implications on performance and exhaust emissions will be explained. Then, a more detailed treatment of squish motion will be given, followed by a review of previous work on squish jet chambers. 2.1 Natural Gas Fuel Natural gas is a gaseous fossil fuel comprised mainly of methane, with components of ethane, propane, and butane(s), as well as oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The elemental composition of the fuel used for this experimental work is shown in table 2.1. The elemental analysis was performed by gas chromatography and was conducted in December 2009. Compound Formula Mole Fraction [%] Methane CH4 96.62 Ethane C2H6 1.78 Propane C3H8 0.47 i-Butane C4H10 0.07 n-Butane C4H10 0.08 i-Pentane C5H12 0.03 n-Pentane C5H12 0.02 Hexane C6H14 0.04 Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.20 Nitrogen N2 0.70 Table 2.1 ? Natural Gas Composition 14 The fuel used in this work was drawn from mains natural gas as supplied by Terasen Gas Inc. Historical gas composition data from Chan[17] indicate low variation in natural gas methane composition and stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, with monthly samples conducted over the period from September 2007 to December 2009 indicating a standard deviations of 0.95% for methane mole fraction and 0.05 for stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. Computed fuel properties for the fuel sample used in this work are given in table 2.2. Property Value Molecular Weight [g/mol] 16.68 Lower Heating Value [kJ/kg] 49009 Stoichiometric Air-fuel Mass Ratio [-] 16.80 Hydrogen/Carbon Ratio [mol/mol] 3.92 Fuel Carbon Content [molC/molFuel] 1.03 Table 2.2 ? Fuel Properties 2.1.1 Stoichiometry The stoichiometric air-fuel ratio refers to the ratio of air required to completely oxidize the fuel. Mixtures with air in excess of this quantity are referred to as lean mixtures, and mixtures with less air are termed rich. It can be seen that natural gas features a higher stoichiometric air-fuel ratio than does motor gasoline, whose stoichiometric air-fuel ratio is typically in the range 14.4 ? 14.7[18]. This difference gives rise to the concept of relative air-fuel ratio (RAFR), or excess air factor (?), which are equivalent and defined as ! " =(A /F)(A /F)stoich 2.1 where ! ( A / F ) is the actual air-fuel ratio and ! (A /F)stoich is the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio for the fuel under consideration. Relative air-fuel ratio is useful for 15 comparing performance of an engine running on different fuels, or on one fuel that may vary in composition and stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. For a lean mixture, ? is greater than unity. More will be said about air-fuel ratio shortly. 2.1.2 Laminar Flame Speed The burning speed of a flame is defined as the velocity relative to the flame front at which unburned gases travel into the flame region and undergo oxidation to combustion products. Since natural gas is composed primarily of alkane hydrocarbons, its laminar burning speed, ! S L , is comparable to that of other predominantly alkane fuels, such as gasoline. There is some dependency on molecular structure of the fuel[19], namely the number of carbon atoms in the alkane chain. However, a much greater effect results from mixture strength. The laminar flame speed for natural gas ranges from 0.45 m/s at the stoichiometric point, to approximately 0.16 m/s at the lean flammability limit[20]. This effect is of particular relevance to lean engine combustion since flame propagation time and therefore combustion duration depends on flame speed, and therefore suffer under extremely lean conditions. There is also a relationship with the physical variables temperature and pressure such that for a particular fuel and mixture strength, the dependency can be fit to an expression of the form[24] ! SL = SL0TT0" # $ % & ' mPP0" # $ % & ' n 2.2 where m > 1. The subscript ?0? refers to some reference condition, and the sign of the exponent indicates the positive temperature dependence of laminar burning speed. Laminar burning speed will be used as a definition for characteristic 16 chemical reaction time for the mixture as the topic of turbulent combustion is discussed. 2.2 Air-fuel Ratio and Engine Performance and Exhaust Emissions Aside from ignition timing, air-fuel ratio is the primary operating parameter that affects engine efficiency and emissions at a given speed and load condition. Peak engine output occurs slightly rich of stoichiometric, in the range ? = 0.9 ? 1.0. Due to dissociation of triatomic molecules, some molecular oxygen is present in the exhaust at ? = 1.0, and some quantity of additional fuel can be introduced and partially burned[18]. This increases the burned gas temperature and pressure in the cylinder and results in higher work transfer to the piston. Theoretical fuel conversion efficiency increases as the mixture is leaned out beyond ? = 1.0[21]; combustion of lean mixtures results in products at a lower temperature with less dissociation, and with more favourable ratio of specific heats. Actual engine efficiency with lean mixtures however depends firmly on combustion chamber design. The competing effects as the mixture strength decreases are the increased fuel conversion efficiency against the increased burn duration and cyclic variation. In practice, maximum brake thermal efficiency is encountered at an intermediate air-fuel ratio between the stoichiometric point and the lean limit. Air-fuel ratio also plays a defining role in the formation of exhaust emissions at a given operating condition. For the purpose of this work NOx and CH4 emissions are considered. NOx formation in natural gas fueled engines arises primarily from oxidation in the engine cylinder of atmospheric nitrogen and the molecular nitrogen component of the fuel. NOx consists mainly of NO and NO2, of which 17 the former is the predominant species[18]. The chemical kinetics of the NO formation reaction have been studied extensively[22,23], and are not considered further here except to note that the reaction rate depends strongly on the combustion product temperature and oxygen concentration. As noted previously, the highest combustion temperatures are encountered at air-fuel ratios slightly rich of stoichiometric. However at this ?, the oxygen concentrations in the burned gas are very low. As ? is increased, the oxygen concentration rises and has the effect of offsetting the decreasing gas temperature. NOx concentration peaks at approximately ? = 1.1, beyond which the effect of decreasing gas temperature dominates and NOx concentration decreases. Hydrocarbon emissions are the result of incomplete combustion of the mixture inducted into the cylinder. In the absence of sufficient oxygen to complete the combustion reaction, i.e. at air-fuel ratios rich of stoichiometric, significant hydrocarbon concentrations will be detectable in the exhaust, in an amount decreasing as the stoichiometric point is approached. This combustion with deficient oxygen concentration is accompanied by high exhaust CO concentration. For ? > 1, hydrocarbon emissions arise by one of four means[18]: 1. Mixture flow into combustion chamber crevice volumes into which the flame is unable to propagate 2. Absorption into and subsequent desorption from lubricating oil 3. Quenching of the flame at combustion chamber surfaces due to heat transfer 4. Partial or complete misfire due to poor combustion quality Of these four, only the last is significantly affected by air-fuel ratio. For moderately lean air-fuel ratios, the first three of the above are mainly responsible 18 for hydrocarbon emission, and as a result modest decrease in concentration is observed with increase in air-fuel ratio due to the diluent effect of excess air. However, during the combustion period taking place during the expansion stroke, cylinder volume is increasing and the end gas temperature and pressure are falling. This leads to a reduction in burning velocity[24]. If the fall in temperature and pressure are too rapid, the flame can be extinguished. This phenomenon is exacerbated at lean air-fuel ratios where the burning velocity is reduced by virtue of mixture strength, and can be mitigated by increasing the speed at which the combustion process proceeds. As the lean limit of the engine is approached, partial misfiring cycles appear, leading to significantly elevated exhaust hydrocarbon emissions. The onset of the lean limit depends on the particulars of the combustion chamber and mixture formation, as well as the engine speed and load. In summary, hydrocarbon emissions for rich mixtures are high due to insufficient oxygen required to achieve complete combustion, and are accompanied by high CO emission. Exhaust hydrocarbon concentration decreases as the stoichiometric point is reached, and further so as the air-fuel ratio is leaned out moderately. At extremely lean conditions, the falling end gas temperature can lead to variable flame extinguishment, during which cycles exhaust hydrocarbon emissions are significantly elevated. As the lean limit is approached and partially and completely misfiring cycles occur, hydrocarbon emissions jump dramatically. Figure 2.1, taken from Bosch[13] depicts the qualitative relationship between air-fuel ratio and exhaust emission concentration. 19 Figure 2.1 ? Exhaust Emission Concentration, Output, and Efficiency with Air-fuel Ratio 2.3 Turbulence Intensity Turbulence flow fields are characterized by random velocity fluctuations in space that may be superimposed on a mean bulk flow. In a quasi-periodic flow such as that encountered in piston engines, the flow velocity at a point in space may be expressed as the sum of mean flow velocity and turbulent velocity fluctuation components. ! U " , i( ) = U " , i( ) + u " , i( ) 2.3 where ! U " , i( ) is the velocity at crank angle ! " during cycle ! i , ! U " , i( ) is the mean velocity, and ! u " , i( ) is the turbulent velocity fluctuation. If the velocity at each crank angle sample is averaged over a number of cycles N, the ensemble average is obtained: ! UEA "( ) =1NU ",i( )i=1N# 2.4 20 The flow velocity can then be expressed as the sum of the ensemble average and a fluctuation component that includes both cyclic fluctuation about the mean as well as turbulent velocity fluctuation: ! U " ,i( ) =UEA "( ) + u* " ,i( ) 2.5 The fluctuation intensity is taken as the RMS value of the velocity fluctuation and is given by ! u ' "( ) =1NU ", i( ) # U EA "( )( )2i =1N$% & ' ( ) * 12 2.6 2.4 Turbulent Combustion The effect of turbulence on combustion depends on the scale of the turbulent eddies with respect to the flame reaction zone thickness, ?L. The turbulence integral length scale ! l I is a measure of the size of large turbulent eddies, and the Kolmogorov length scale ! l K is characteristic of the smallest eddies. Damk?hler[25], through his work on burners, found that when the integral length scale is much less than the laminar flame thickness, modest flame speed increases are effected by enhancement of the transport processes carrying mixture from the preheat zone ahead of the flame front into the reaction zone. Damk?hler also proposed a mechanism by which larger scale turbulence increases burning speed through a wrinkling of the thin reaction sheet of the advancing flame front. Some discussion of the turbulent combustion regime in premixed SI engines is in order. The flame thickness is often defined as ! " L =DS L 2.7 21 where D is the molecular diffusivity, and is assumed to be equal to the kinematic viscosity[26]. A characteristic chemical reaction time can then be defined as ! "L =#LS L 2.8 and a characteristic eddy turnover time as ! "T =l Iu' 2.9 The Damk?hler number for turbulent combustion can then be defined as ! Da ="T"L=lI#L$ % & ' ( ) SLu'$ % & ' ( ) 2.10 which is an inverse ratio of the effect of the turbulence strength on the chemical reactions in the flame. The turbulent Reynolds number is given by ! Re T =u' l I" 2.10 Data from Andrews et al[27] indicate that the values of turbulent Reynolds and Damk?hler numbers encountered in premixed charge SI combustion result in turbulent combustion during the main burning phase lying primarily in the wrinkled or corrugated flamelet regime, where ! l K "#L[26]. Therefore the expectation is that the structure of the turbulent flame is that of a thin sheet burning locally at the laminar burning speed, whose structure is being wrinkled and distorted by the turbulent field. Schlieren photographs from Heywood[28] provide further evidence of the thin sheet becoming highly convoluted, enveloping pockets of unburned mixtures, and developing into a turbulent flame brush. Many authors have investigated the effect of turbulent fluctuation intensity on the burning speed of premixed flames in IC engine applications. In general, the findings are that a linear increase in turbulent burning speed ! S T is realized with 22 an increase in turbulence intensity ! u ' [29,30,31]. Damk?hler?s[25] model of flame front wrinkling introduces the concept of turbulent burning velocity in the following manner ! 1"udmbdt= SLAL = ST AT 2.11 where ! "u is the unburned gas density and ! dm b dt is the mass burning rate. ! AL is the overall area of the distorted laminar flame front(s), and ! AT is the area of the mean turbulent flame front. Therefore the ratio of turbulent to laminar burning speed is equal to the ratio of overall laminar to mean turbulent flame front area: ! STSL=ALAT 2.12 Damk?hler used the relation ! ALAT= 1 +u 'S L 2.13 which gives the trend reported by Groff & Matekunas, Bates, and others during the main burning phase in combustion bomb and firing engine experiments. Though turbulence increases the burning speed in premixed combustion, turbulence can also cause extinguishment of the flame. Fluid strain can cause extinguishment of a laminar flame due to disparities in the transport rates of reactants into and heat out of the reaction zone[32]. As the strain rate increases, the temperature in the reaction zone decreases, until at some point the generation of radical species stops and the flame is extinguished[33]. Experiments with turbulent combustion of propane in a combustion bomb have shown that as the turbulent fluctuation intensity is increased the turbulent burning speed does increase in an initially linear fashion[34], but that at some intensity a maximum burning speed is reached[34,35]. As turbulence intensity is further increased, the 23 turbulent burning speed decreases, until the flame is no longer self-sustaining. This effect is more pronounced when the Kolmogorov length scale is smaller than the laminar flame thickness, and turbulent eddies are able to penetrate the locally laminar flame and affect its structure. The effect is aggravated for premixed combustion in lean mixtures, and for combustion occurring late in the expansion stroke at lower temperatures, both of which conditions result in a lower laminar burning speed and increased laminar flame thickness. This phenomenon is a primary contributor to high hydrocarbon emissions in lean burn SI engines, contrary to the intuition that combustion with high oxygen concentration would result in low HC emissions. In order to ensure complete combustion of lean mixtures, consideration must be made of the counteracting effects of shortened burn duration and propensity for flame extinguishment imparted by increased turbulence intensity. 2.5 Turbulence Generation in IC Engines During the intake process, high bulk charge velocities arise as flow through the intake port fills the cylinder. Hot wire anemometry (HWA) experiments have shown that shear flow past the intake valve is the main source of turbulence[36], but that this flow structure decays rapidly by the beginning of the compression process. The magnitude of turbulence intensity follows that of the bulk charge velocity, and the turbulence becomes homogeneous and relaxes during the compression process[37]. Nevertheless, turbulence generated during the intake process has been known to be important in SI engine combustion since an early experiment by Clerk[38], in which he compared burn duration for combustion immediately following the intake stroke with that following several engine 24 revolutions with the valves closed; the burn duration for combustion immediately following the intake process was half that of combustion given additional time for turbulence dissipation. Similar results were demonstrated by Semenov[36]. In such cases where subsequent generation of turbulence by piston motion and chamber geometry is absent, the consensus is that turbulence intensity at TDC is roughly half the mean piston speed[18]. This result is of particular importance; flow velocity through the intake port is proportional to engine speed, and the resulting increase in shear during the flow causes turbulence intensity to scale with engine speed as well. During the compression process, additional opportunities are available for generating turbulence in the charge. If a bulk rotational charge motion, or swirl, is imparted during the intake process, then an increase in the swirl velocity is realized near the end of compression due to conservation of angular momentum. Since the swirling charge does not rotate as a rigid body, the additional shear forces associated with this type of flow result in additional turbulence generation near the end of the compression process. Squish is another type of in-cylinder charge motion can be employed to promote turbulence. As mentioned previously, squish is a transverse or radial motion that happens as the piston nears the cylinder head at TDC as a result of a portion of the piston, the squish area, approaching the cylinder head more closely. Squish velocity for the chambers considered in this work was modeled using a two-zone homopycnic mass conservation model, which predicts the average charge velocity across the cylindrical boundary separating the cylinder volume above the squish area from that above the piston cavity. A depiction of the model zones above an isometric section view of the piston crown is shown in figure 2.2 for the BIP 25 chamber. In green is the zone above the squish area, and in red that above the piston cavity. Figure 2.2 ? Zone Boundary for Squish Velocity Model As the name implies, the model does not account for non-uniform cylinder density, nor does it include viscous effects. The effects of mass leakage from the cylinder and heat transfer from the chamber were neglected, but have been shown to result in a 5 ? 15% decrement in the predicted velocity[39]. Crank angle based velocity profiles for the BIP and squish jet chambers are depicted in figure 2.3. The predicted profiles for each of the squish jet chambers are identical because only the cavity volume is important, and not the shape. An important geometric parameter for squish-type combustion chambers is the squish area ratio, which for chambers featuring the a cavity in the piston, is defined by ! r s = 1 "d b2B 2 2.14 where ! d b is the piston bowl diameter, and ! B is the cylinder bore. 26 Although the BIP and squish jet chambers differ in squish area, the predicted squish velocity profiles are very similar because of the combined effect of squish area and the TDC volumes of the two zones. Maximum squish velocity is approximately 5% higher for the squish jet chambers, peaking at -15.5 degCA ATDC for the BIP chamber, and at -16 degCA ATDC for the squish jet chambers. The squish velocity shown in figure 2.3 is normalized by mean piston speed. As does the organized bulk charge velocity associated with the intake process, squish velocity predicted by this model scales with engine speed. ?180 ?160 ?140 ?120 ?100 ?80 ?60 ?40 ?20 000.10.20.30.40.50.6degCA ATDCNormalized Squish Velocity [?] BIPSJx Figure 2.3 ? Normalized Squish Velocity for BIP & SJ Chambers D?hring[40] performed bulk velocity and turbulence measurements via HWA in a rapid intake and compression machine (RICM) with a disc shaped chamber, and confirmed that the turbulence intensity had largely relaxed by IVC. His comparisons of compression only with intake and compression however did 27 demonstrate the persistence into the compression stroke of turbulence generated during the intake process. He concluded that the decay following IVC was at least partially balanced due to enhanced vorticity due to compression. Dymala-Dolesky[41] investigated the in-cylinder flow field with HWA on the same engine with the same cylinder head as this author, and observed decaying turbulence intensity during the compression process, but marked spikes in bulk velocity and turbulent fluctuation intensity approximately at -10 degCA ATDC with a squish chamber. He also found the ensemble averaged mean velocity and turbulence intensity, including the spikes due to squish, to scale with engine speed, in agreement with investigations by previously mentioned authors. Mawle[42] performed follow-up experiments with a RICM to investigate charge motion due to squish due solely to the compression process. His results showed negligible turbulence intensity as the piston approached TDC until roughly -40 degCA ATDC, when turbulence started to appear, peaking near -20 degCA ATDC. Mawle found that the squish velocity was highest at the entrance to the piston cavity, but that turbulence intensity was at its highest some depth into the piston cavity. These observations imply radially inward charge motion from the squish area, and then downward into the piston cavity. His measurements of turbulence intensity also indicated concentration of the turbulent energy in the centre of the piston cavity. Tippett[43] compared mean velocity and turbulence intensity between a disc type combustion chamber and a BIP chamber with squish. Her experiments were performed using the same engine as Dymala-Dolesky (as well as this author), and featured a single point HWA measurement obtained with a probe with cylinder access through the spark plug boss. Her results indicated that the disc chamber produced higher turbulence intensity than did the BIP chamber, though notably the turbulence intensity spike was still 28 visible beginning in the final 30 degCA before TDC. Tippett?s flow field results however are tenuous on several accounts. Firstly, the disc chamber used featured a compression ratio of 10:1, instead of 9:1 as with the BIP chamber. Secondly, the HWA probe location was somewhat offset from the centre of the combustion chamber and was stationary with respect to the cylinder head for all measurements, whereas Dymala-Dolesky was able to situate the probe in the piston cavity in order to take flow measurements in the region of the combustion chamber where turbulence dissipation would be expected to occur. Finally, and perhaps most glaringly, her results showed at least a twofold difference between the observed turbulence intensities normalized by mean piston speed for the disc and BIP chambers during the final stages of the intake process before the valve closed, for both engine speeds tested. This draws suspicion as to the soundness of these instances of turbulence measurement. 2.6 Squish Jet The effect of squish on bulk charge motion and turbulence generation in the engine cylinder has been thoroughly investigated. Nakamura et al[44] published a work dealing with the application of a special valve to the cylinder head in order to direct a jet of lean mixture toward the spark plug, which resulted in shorter burn duration with associated efficiency improvement. Several years later, Evans[14,15,16] developed the squish jet chamber design described in the introductory chapter. Early investigations into the squish jet chamber were performed by Dymala-Dolesky[41] using a RICM with optical access to visualize the effect of the jets by seeding the charge with microballoons and capturing high-speed motion pictures. The squish jet pistons used in that investigation 29 featured closed internal channels in the piston. The motion pictures confirmed the development of jet flow issuing from the channels, though the jet velocity was lower than was predicted. HWA measurements indicated that the primary effect on the in-cylinder flow field of the internal closed channel squish jet design was to increase turbulence at the bottom of the piston cavity, at the expense of that in the vicinity of the cavity opening. The result is reduced turbulence intensity near the spark plug position just prior to the piston reaching TDC. Firing engine tests indicated that the squish jet design caused a reduction in the peak rate of heat release, and a delay in reaching that peak. His results for cycle-to-cycle variability in integrated cylinder work showed that the BIP chamber design was superior to any of the internal closed channel squish jet designs. Mawle?s[42] RICM investigation into the squish jet design made use of squish jet pistons with open channels on the combustion face. He found that the squish jet designs had the effect of increasing the turbulence intensity measured at the piston cavity opening, as well as inducing slightly earlier squish motion on the compression stroke. He concluded that the raised ?fence? on the piston combustion face was largely responsible for the elevated magnitude of charge motion, and that increasing the number of channels diminished this effect. Mawle performed firing tests in the RICM, and found that the timing of the transition from flame development to a rapidly burning turbulent flame was controlled by the timing of the turbulence generation, and was earlier for combustion with squish jet pistons than with BIP pistons. He found difficulty however in relating the observed burning rate to single point turbulence measurements, and observed little difference in combustion duration between BIP and squish jet chambers. His primary conclusion from firing tests was that heat release was shifted earlier with the squish jet pistons, and that the timing of turbulence generation during the 30 compression process was more significant than the ignition timing for the development of the rapid burning turbulent flame. Tippett[43] performed a series of engine firing tests with BIP and internal closed-channel squish jet pistons, as well pistons of a design she referred to as ?castellated?, which resemble the open channel squish jet pistons used by Mawle. Tippett?s firing tests consisted of wide-open throttle operation between stoichiometric and ? = 1.3 at various engine speeds, as well as part-throttle operation (2.5 and 3.5 bar BMEP). Her firing results showed highest thermal efficiency with the BIP chamber design for all engine speeds and air-fuel ratios. Her dynamometer performance measurements were corroborated with cylinder pressure heat release analysis. Also of interest, Tippett noted that the squish jet chamber designs featured more retarded maximum brake torque (MBT) ignition timing than did the disc or BIP chamber designs. The previous flow field experiments with squish jet pistons indicated that the open-channel designs provided the best potential for increasing turbulence intensity at the opening of the piston cavity, in the region of the combustion chamber closest to the ignition source, and where the majority of combustion takes place. In light of this, an open-channel design was proposed and tested against a baseline (Cummins L10G) BIP type chamber by Goetz[45] at ORTECH International. All tests were conducted at MBT ignition timing, and generally it was found that the squish jet chamber reduced ignition delay and combustion duration, and operated with more retarded MBT timing. The result was higher thermal efficiency across the range of air-fuel ratio from stoichiometric to ? = 1.6 with no difference in hydrocarbon emissions for all ? < 1.6. The squish jet chamber resulted in reduced brake specific NOx emissions for ? of 1.4 and greater, 31 the reason for which was proposed to be more retarded ignition timing. Similar comparative investigations of the era were conducted by Evans and Blaszczyk[46,47,48]. Blaszczyk found that the squish jet chambers showed promise for extending the lean limit of the engine, and for improving thermal efficiency over the baseline BIP chamber. In particular, he noted a roughly 5% reduction in brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) over the baseline with the various squish jet chambers at intermediate air-fuel ratios. At ? = 1.6, the reduction in BSFC with squish jet chambers was closer to 20% as the baseline chamber was extremely unstable at that air-fuel ratio. Blaszczyk found little difference in hydrocarbon emissions except for a reduction over the baseline at the lean limit, and negligible difference in CO emissions for any of the chambers tested. Test results agreed with those of Tippett in that the squish jet chamber operated with more retarded MBT timing than the BIP chamber. Other performance benefits for the squish jet chamber reported from those experiments included confirmation of Goetz?s finding of reduced flame development period and main combustion duration, as well as a lowered NOx ? thermal efficiency trade-off for the squish jet chambers over the baseline[49]. The trade-off reported there considered only changes in air-fuel ratio however, and not optimization with ignition timing. In order to obtain greater understanding of the complex charge flow inside squish and squish jet chambers, Lappas[50,51] undertook a series of experiments to compare the flow processes in a standard BIP chamber and two open-channel squish jet chambers. The first of the two squish jet chambers he studied features piston crown geometry that is substantially similar to that of the chambers considered in this work, albeit scaled to the larger bore of the RICM apparatus he used to establish the initial and boundary in-cylinder conditions. Lappas used 32 particle image velocimetry (PIV) to measure spatially resolved mean fluid velocity, and laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) to measure turbulence intensity. Lappas? work showed that although the squish jet chambers resulted in lower mean squish velocities than the BIP chamber, the turbulent fluctuations were most intense with the squish jet chambers. He also reported that the magnitude of turbulence intensity continued to increase after the squish jet velocity had peaked. He was able to directly confirm Mawle?s[42] conclusion that the squish velocity was highest in the vicinity of the entrance to the piston cavity. By inference, another finding of Lappas confirms results of Mawle?s: residual radially inward flow in the piston cavity observed after radial velocity in the squish area had subsided implied recirculating flow in the piston cavity. In addition, validation of the squish velocity prediction from the model presented in section 2.5 was made possible by PIV measurements[52], as well as of the magnitude of the velocity decrement due to heat transfer reported by Shimamoto and Akiyama[39]. 33 Chapter 3 ? Experimental Apparatus All engine experiments were conducted on the Ricardo Hydra engine installed in test cell 103 at the Clean Energy Research Centre (CERC). A description of the apparatus and facilities is given, as well as of the piston design and manufacture. 3.1 Ricardo Hydra Engine The Ricardo Hydra engine is a single-cylinder research engine specifically designed for conducting engine experiments in a laboratory setting. The engine was designed and built by Ricardo Consulting Engineers of Shoreham-by-Sea, UK. The engine serial number is 30 and the year of construction was 1984. General specifications are given in table 3.1. Serial Number 30 IVO 348? ATDC Construction Year 1984 IVC -112? ATDC Cylinder Count 1 EVO 112? ATDC Bore 80.26 mm EVC -348? ATDC Stroke 88.90 mm Max Speed 5400 rpm Con-rod Length 158.00 mm Max Power 15 kW Swept Volume 450 cc Max Cyl Pressure 120 bar Table 3.1 ? Engine Specifications The engine features modular crankcase, cylinder block, cylinder head and camshaft box. Out of such design arises much flexibility in configuration of the engine for different operating schemes. The original equipment complement includes a fuel system for gasoline operation as a spark-ignition engine, as well as a mechanical diesel fuel injection pump and nozzle for operation as a compression-ignition engine. In the following sections, modifications to and 34 replacements of original equipment engine components will be discussed. Unless otherwise indicated, engine components are original equipment. 3.2 Cylinder Head The cylinder head fitted to the engine for the experiments was designed at the University of British Columbia by R. Dymala-Dolesky. The cylinder head was redesigned to feature a flat combustion chamber roof. Slight recesses in the combustion chamber roof accommodate the inlet and exhaust valves, of which there is one each. The exterior dimensions as well as charge and water passages were designed after original equipment drawings supplied by the manufacturer. The cylinder head features a boss to accept a 10 mm spark plug, the location of which is as central as possible in the combustion chamber given the edge locations of the valves. Another boss is provided to accept the flush-mounted piezoelectric cylinder pressure transducer. The cylinder head was cast out of A356 aluminum in the T6 heat-treated condition, and machined to dimension. Cylinder head drawings are featured in figures C.4 ? C.6. 3.3 Pistons The pistons used in these experiments are a two-piece design originally developed by J. Blaszczyk, and are depicted in figure 3.1. Two-piece piston design was employed in order to facilitate changes to the piston crown geometry. The necessity of manufacturing only revised piston crowns reduces manufacturing costs significantly. The design features an internally threaded piston body featuring the skirt, oil passages, and wrist pin. The piston body is machined to 35 original equipment specifications with respect to taper, cam grind, oil passage, ring groove and land geometry, etc. The second compression ring groove as well as the oil control ring groove are featured on the piston body. The body is mated to an externally threaded piston crown, between which a fine custom thread ensures a tight and concentric fit. In contrast with the piston body, the piston crown is circular in cross-section, and is dimensioned to original equipment crown specifications. The first compression ring groove geometry and location relative to grooves on the body are preserved. Both the piston components are machined from cast blanks of A356-T6 aluminum. Figure 3.1 ? Two-piece Piston Pistons were designed in part according to geometric requirements. A target compression ratio of 10:1 was set; this target is typical for lean-burn gas engines 36 in industrial and on-road applications. The appropriate clearance volume follows directly from this target, given that the swept volume is fixed. The clearance height is limited to a minimum of 4.6 mm due to interference between the piston and valves. Therefore the portion of the clearance volume above the piston compression face as well as the required piston bowl cavity volume are determined. Piston crown drawings are featured in figures C.1 ? C.3. 3.3.1 Baseline Pistons The baseline piston design is a conventional lean-burn natural gas engine piston. The so-called bowl-in-piston (BIP) design features an axisymmetric central cavity or bowl, which provides a volume into which the charge can flow as a result of squish motion. The BIP piston for these experiments was geometrically scaled from a 137 mm bore Caterpillar G3406 industrial natural gas engine. Because the resulting clearance volume was larger than the target value given the minimum clearance height, the piston bowl was further reduced in size via an isotropic scaling in order to achieve the target clearance volume. The BIP piston features a squish area fraction of 52.35%. The cavity volume is 25264.63 mm3. Relevant geometric details are given in table 3.2, and an isometric view of the piston crown is shown in figure 3.2. Bowl Volume Clearance Volume Compression Ratio Squish Fraction BIP 25264.63 mm3 48974.44 mm3 10.2 52.4% SJA 13833.17 mm3 48446.78 mm3 10.3 73.2% SJB 14363.46 mm3 48978.09 mm3 10.2 73.2% Table 3.2 ? Piston Geometric Parameters 37 Figure 3.2 ? BIP Piston Crown Isometric View 3.3.2 Squish Jet Pistons The squish jet pistons are based on a design used for a comparative test program carried out at ORTECH International in Mississauga, Ontario. The ORTECH squish jet design was conceived in order to test squish jet performance against the original equipment piston design in a Cummins L10G heavy-duty automotive natural gas engine. Results of that test program were presented at the 1993 Windsor Workshop on Alternative Fuels[45]. The ORTECH squish jet design is a crenellated piston crown design, and features four evenly radially spaced open jet channels on the combustion face, issuing into a central cavity. Forming the four jet channels is a crenellated parapet protruding from the otherwise flat combustion face of the piston crown. The 38 merlons formed by this crenellation are intended to impede the squish motion of the charge in radial positions included by the merlons and direct it through the jet channels during the approach of the piston crown toward the fire deck of the cylinder head. The features of the squish jet pistons above the piston cavity top plane were scaled down geometrically from the ORTECH squish jet piston design. Two piston cavity designs were developed for the squish jet pistons: the first featuring a straight-walled cavity, and the second featuring an undercut cavity. In both cases, the volume of the cavity was determined directly from clearance volume requirements, and geometric features internal to the cavity were designed to facilitate manufacturing using commonly available tooling. Drawings of the piston crowns are included in appendix C. The squish jet pistons feature a squish area fraction of 73.16%. The cavity volume of the straight-walled cavity is 13883.17 mm3. The cavity volume of the undercut cavity is 14363.46 mm3. The resulting discrepancy in compression ratio is less than 0.1. Relevant geometric details are given in table 3.2, and isometric views of the two squish jet piston crowns are shown in figures 3.3 and 3.4. 39 Figure 3.3 ? Squish Jet ?A? Piston Crown Isometric View Figure 3.4 ? Squish Jet ?B? Piston Crown Isometric View 40 To avoid ambiguity and to maintain consistency of terminology between the squish jet and BIP piston designs, the combustion face of the piston crown always refers in this work to the plane of the piston crown that is most distant above the wrist pin axis. The piston cavity face shall refer to the plane of the piston cavity opening. The piston cavity face and the piston combustion face are one and the same for the BIP design. This definition determines unambiguously the compression height of the piston and the clearance height of the combustion chamber. 3.4 Fuel System The fuel delivery method employed for the experiments is continuous intake manifold fumigation. The control and measurement component of the system consists of a MKS model 1559A thermal mass flow meter and controller, metering fuel directly into the engine air intake duct, upstream of the throttle plate. The mass flow meter and controller are rated for up to 100 standard l/min (slm) at a fuel inlet pressure of up to 690 kPa gauge. Accuracy of the instrument is reported by the manufacturer as ?1.0% of full-scale (FS), with repeatability of ?0.2% FS. The response time of the instrument is < 500 ms. The input signal is a direct current (DC) voltage in the range 0-5 V, corresponding to a set point in the range 0-100% FS, which is obtained from an analog output channel of the electronic control console. The output signal from the instrument is a voltage in the range 0-5 VDC, which is acquired by a high impedance input channel on the data acquisition system. The instrument is calibrated by the manufacturer using nitrogen (N2) as a calibration gas. A gas 41 correction factor for methane is applied for natural gas measurements. The full-scale flow of 100 slm corresponds to a natural gas mass flow rate of 3.089 kg/h. Fuel can be directed to the mass flow controller by one of two means. Natural gas from the main building supply can be routed directly into the mass flow controller through an in-line natural gas fuel filter. The pressure of the main natural gas supply is approximately 35 kPa gauge, and is therefore insufficient for engine operation at manifold absolute pressures (MAP) above 1.3 bar. Alternatively, a natural gas compressor capable of 35 MPa is present at the CERC facility. Natural gas can be directed from the reservoir of this compressor through a two-stage pressure regulation system in the test cell and into the fuel mass flow controller. The first regulator is a Praxair PRS 4092, and is used to reduce the fuel pressure to approximately 3500 kPa. The second pressure regulator is a Praxair PRS 312 and is used to regulate the fuel pressure down to that required at the inlet of the mass flow controller, which is 175-275 kPa above the outlet pressure. 3.5 Ignition System The ignition system used for experiments is a custom capacitive discharge ignition (CDI) system, which was designed and built by the UBC electronics and instrumentation group. A capacitive discharge system functions by charging a capacitive bank to the primary voltage, and at the desired ignition timing, discharging the capacitors into the primary winding of the ignition coil. The ignition coil functions as a transformer and steps the primary voltage up to the secondary or ignition voltage. This approach is contrasted with the inductive 42 discharge design commonly employed in many automotive applications, where current is allowed to flow through the primary winding of the ignition coil until the desired ignition point. The primary current is then switched off, allowing the magnetic field in the coil to collapse and the resulting back EMF to induce a voltage across the secondary coil. In short, in the capacitive discharge system, the capacitors perform the energy storage function and the ignition coil functions only as a transformer, whereas in the inductive discharge system, the ignition coil performs both the energy storage and voltage transforming functions. CDI systems provide a number of advantages over inductive discharge systems, including ability to control spark duration and enhanced capability to strike multiple sparks during a single ignition event. The CDI system used in the experiments functions in a way that the current delivered to the primary ignition coil winding is supplied in a sequence of peak current followed by a smaller hold current, as illustrated in figure 3.5. The ignition system circuitry can be understood as consisting of four sections: input, peak/hold, logic, and output. The input section operates at 5 VDC and is responsible for conditioning the ignition signal from the control electronics and generating inverted input and peak signals to pass along to the logic section. The input section is optically isolated from the remainder of the circuitry to prevent damage to other test cell control electronics in the event of a short circuit in the high voltage circuitry. The input section circuit diagram is shown in figure 3.6. 43 Figure 3.5 ? Ignition System Peak and Hold Current Figure 3.6 ? Ignition System Input Section Circuit Diagram The peak/hold section features a pair of comparators that regulate the device (ignition primary circuit) peak or hold current. This section compares the device load negative voltage, a surrogate measurement for device current, against a 12 44 VDC reference potential. The peak/hold section outputs a logical true (12 VDC) when the positive voltage on the peak or hold comparator is lower than the negative device load voltage, and the opposite (0 VDC) otherwise. One potentiometer is furnished on the positive side of each comparator in order to set the peak and hold current levels. The peak/hold section circuit diagram is shown in figure 3.7. Figure 3.7 ? Ignition System Peak/Hold Section Circuit Diagram The logic section, which operates at 12 VDC, determines whether the peak or hold current level is desired based on signals from the input section and feedback from the peak/hold section, and generates a sequence of switching signals which are passed to the output section. The result of this logical evaluation is that the switching signal will be high if the peak activation signal is high during peak time, or if the hold activation signal is high. In order for this logic to function as desired, the peak current must be set greater than the hold current, and the peak time must be less than the input signal duration. The logic section circuit diagram is shown in figure 3.8. The switching signal bears the following Boolean logic: 45 ! Q = " P + " K ( )" + H# $ % & ' ( "+ " W ) * + , + - . + / + " 3.1 where P is the peak activation signal, from the peak/hold section, K is the (non-inverted) peak time, from the input section, H is the hold activation signal, from the peak/hold section, W is the (non-inverted) input signal, from the input section, and Q is the output switching signal. Figure 3.8 ? Ignition System Logic Diagram The output section is supplied with 500 VDC by means of a 347 VAC supply and a full-wave rectifier. This section serves only to read the switching signal from the logic section and activate a MOSFET driver, which closes the high voltage circuit to the ignition primary. The output circuitry is shown in figure 3.9. 46 Figure 3.9 ? Ignition System Output Circuit Diagram 3.6 Engine Control Control of engine operating condition is effected by means of regulation of the intake manifold absolute pressure (MAP), the fuel mass flow, the engine speed, and the ignition timing. Three separate test cell subsystems are employed in order to accomplish this task. The engine speed and fuel mass flow are controlled from the electronic control console. The engine speed is regulated by means of the dynamometer, and is adjusted by setting the position of a dial. The console sends the appropriate analog signal to the dynamometer thyristor drive. In a similar fashion, the desired signal is provided to the fuel mass flow controller by a mating analog module installed in the control console. MAP control is achieved by one of two means, depending on whether the engine is operating the in the naturally aspirated (NA) or supercharged inlet regime. Combustion air supply is manually selectable by means of a three-way valve 47 situated in the test cell. In one position, combustion air is drawn from the ambient, and in the other position, is drawn from a screw compressor located in the CERC facility. For operation in the NA regime, MAP control is effected by setting the position of the intake throttle using an analog signal generated in the control console. For operating in the supercharged regime, the combustion air supply pressure is manually set by a pair of regulators installed in the combustion air supply plumbing. In both cases, the desired MAP set point is verified by reading the appropriate data acquisition system signal on the control PC display. Ignition timing is controlled by means of a LabView program integrated with the data acquisition system software. Precise engine position information is obtained from the crankshaft encoder and camshaft position sensor, and is continuously read and processed in the ignition timing program. The spark timing and duration are input into a user interface on the control PC, and the appropriate input signal is delivered to the ignition driver. Spark timing is selectable in 0.5 crank angle degree increments, and spark duration in 0.25 degree increments. 3.7 Cell Services 3.7.1 Fuel Natural gas fuel is admitted into the engine test cell through one of two paths. A direct connection to the municipal mains gas supply is provided. Typically the gas pressure at this connection is typically 35 kPa gauge or less. This supply is suitable for engine operation in the NA inlet condition regime, where MAP does not exceed 100 kPa absolute. Under such conditions, the mains natural gas 48 supply is filtered using a spin-on type natural gas fuel filter, and is directly connected to the fuel mass flow controller for delivery to the engine. For operation under supercharged inlet conditions, the mains supply pressure is insufficient. The CERC facility is equipped with a natural gas compressor station, which is capable of compressing the fuel to 35 MPa gauge. The compressor is a Jordair model BK 24 four stage reciprocating piston compressor. Fuel from the compressor is directed through the exterior wall into the test cell, whereafter the fuel pressure is regulated down to operating pressure, as described in section 3.4. 3.7.2 Water Cooling service for the engine is furnished by a water-to-water heat exchanger situated on the engine mounting pad in the test cell. The hot side of the exchanger is part of the closed engine coolant circuit, and the cold side is open and supplied by municipal water from the mains. Thermostats on the heat exchanger regulate engine coolant temperature to 95?C. The cylinder pressure transducer is also provided with cooling by a separate cooling circuit. A positive displacement pump submersed in a reservoir located in the test cell trench supplies the transducer with coolant in order to maintain acceptable operating temperature. The hot coolant leaving the transducer is returned to the reservoir. Heat rejection is to the ambient via the reservoir. No temperature control mechanism is provided; coolant flow to the transducer is constant. 49 3.7.3 Air Handling Combustion air is supplied from one of two sources, manually selectable from within the test cell by means of a three-way valve. In one position, combustion air is drawn from the ambient through a filter element. In the other position, air is drawn from an Ingersoll-Rand model IRN50H-CC electric screw compressor located above the test cell. Air exiting the compressor at 700 kPa gauge is dried and cooled in a conditioning unit, and directed into the test cell. Because supercharged air is conditioned prior to entering the test cell, no dedicated charge air cooling equipment is required inside the test cell. Combustion air pressure regulation is accomplished in two stages, using Praxair model PRS 4083 regulators. After regulation, supercharged combustion air follows the same path as would ambient combustion air. Combustion air is directed with 1.5 in plumbing through the air flow measurement apparatus and into a plenum. The plenum is an epoxy lined steel pressure vessel with a volume of 0.049 m3. From the plenum outlet, combustion air is directed through a line consisting of 1.5 in diameter black pipe and stainless steel flexible hose into the engine intake tract. It is in the engine intake tract that fuel is introduced, and that the intake throttle is located. For starting and for part-load operation, the throttle is partially closed; otherwise the throttle is commanded wide open. 50 3.7.4 Exhaust Exhaust exiting the engine from the cylinder head is directed into 1.5 in steel exhaust tubing for 1 m until it reaches the main test cell exhaust system. The main exhaust is 2.5 in pipe and features a plenum with volume 0.132 m3. The main exhaust is equipped with a bung for mounting an oxygen sensor, as well as a port for connection to the heated emissions sampling line. After exiting the plenum, exhaust gas is directed through a butterfly valve for back pressure control, and out a rooftop exhaust pipe. No exhaust aftertreatment is provided. 3.7.5 Dynamometer The engine is directly coupled to a motoring/absorbing dynamometer for speed control and brake torque measurement. The dynamometer is a David McClure Ltd. shunt wound continuous duty DC machine rated for 30 kW at up to 6000 rpm. Brake torque is measured by means of a BLH electronics load beam transducer. Dynamometer control is conducted by a KTK Ltd. thyristor drive unit, rated for 30 kW continuous duty at 70 A, with an overload capacity of 105 A for 30 s. The thyristor drive unit receives a speed set point signal from an analog unit in the electronic control console, and dynamometer speed is regulated accordingly. 51 3.8 Data Acquisition Hardware and Software The data acquisition system consists of several hardware and software systems operating in unison in order to sample and display operating parameters from the engine test cell at regular intervals and to record and save the values of these parameters to disk upon request. Each component system will be described individually, as well as the role of each in the complete system. 3.8.1 Analog Signal Conditioning Modules Analog channels are input into one of three signal conditioning modules. Thermocouple inputs are handled by an IOtech DBK52 thermocouple input module, which conditions the signals and applies engineering units directly to the analog voltage signals. Air and fuel flow, as well as brake torque signals are directed into an IOtech DBK18 low pass analog filter module. The remainder of the analog channels are directed to an IOtech DBK 53 analog input module. Each of the three analog input modules provides low-pass filtering, gain and offset adjustment, and time-division signal multiplexing facilities. The output signals from the conditioning modules are made available for sampling by the data acquisition server. 3.8.2 Server PC At the heart of the data acquisition system is a PC located inside the test cell. On this PC run two purpose-built LabView programs, DynoServer and TimingControl, and installed in the PC are a National Instruments PCI6601 52 counter/timer device and an IOtech Daqboard 2000 data acquisition device. The data acquisition device features a 16-bit 200 kHz A/D converter and two 16 bit 100 kHz D/A converters. Though the data acquisition device features an internal pacer clock, the timing signal is provided by the auxiliary counter/timer device. When data is requested, the data acquisition device cycles through each channel and samples at 1 kHz. Each channel is sampled 250 times, and the values are averaged before being made available to other components in the data acquisition system. Subsequent to the multiplex sampling and averaging, one engine cycle of MAP and cylinder pressure is collected at 0.5 degree crank angle increments. The cylinder pressure is pegged as described in section 3.9.2. This process has a duration of approximately 1 s and constitutes a unit request for data. The TimingControl program running on the server PC permits the operator to control the ignition timing and duration. Desired ignition parameters are sent from TimingControl to the counter/timer device, which also receives and processes crankshaft position information from the crankshaft encoder and camshaft position information from the camshaft position sensor. The counter/timer device uses these inputs to deliver a control signal of appropriate timing and duration to the ignition driver. 3.8.3 Client PC The client PC is located outside the test cell, at the operator console. Two LabView applications running on this PC, DynoClient and PressureClient, communicate via a TCP/IP connection with the server PC inside the test cell. DynoClient is responsible for displaying low-speed engine operating parameters in 53 a GUI, and for sending requests to DynoServer to save data to disk. In a similar manner, PressureClient displays a cylinder pressure indicator diagram and sends requests to save crank angle based cylinder pressure data to disk. Both applications continuously refresh the displayed data, but do not necessarily display in real time due to network latency and other factors. 3.9 Instrumentation 3.9.1 Low Speed Instrumentation The engine is equipped with a complement of analog instrumentation for monitoring engine operating conditions. Such measurements are termed low speed and take place at a rate of approximately 60 samples per minute. These instruments can be broadly classified as temperature, pressure, or flow measurement instruments. A list of instruments appears in table 3.3. 54 Instrument Make Model Range Accuracy Crankshaft Position US Digital H1-360 -360 ? 359 degCA - Brake Torque BLH Electronics - 0 ? 48 Nm ?0.1% FS Universal Exhaust Gas Oxygen Bosch LSU4.2 0.7 ? 2.0 ! ?0.05 ! LFE Delta Pressure Omega PX653 0 ? 10" H2O ?0.25% FS Intake Manifold Pressure PCB Piezotronics 1501B01FB3BARA 0 ? 3 bar ?0.25% FS Intake Manifold Temperature - K Type -200 ? 1200?C ?1.5?C Fuel Mass Flow MKS 1559A 0 ? 100 slm ?1.0% FS Inlet Air Pressure PCB Piezotronics 1501B01FB3BARA 0 ? 3 bar ?0.25% FS Non-dispersive Infrared ABB Uras 14 0 ? 15% CO2 < 1% FS Chemiluminescence AVL CLD 4000 0 ? 2600 ppm NOx < 1% FS Flame Ionization Pierburg FID 4000 0 ? 4300 ppm CH4 < 1% FS Paramagnetic Oxygen ABB Magnos 106 0 ? 22% O2 < 1% FS Exhaust Temperature - K Type -200 ? 1200?C ?1.5?C Oil Temperature - K Type -200 ? 1200?C ?1.5?C Oil Pressure AutoTran 250G100P 3 N 0 ? 100 psig ?1.0% FS Coolant Temperature - K Type -200 ? 1200?C ?1.5?C Ambient Pressure PCB Piezotronics 1501B01FB3BARA 0 ? 3 bar ?0.25% FS Inlet Air Temperature - K Type -200 ? 1200?C ?1.5?C Relative Humidity Ohmic Instruments HC-610 0 ? 100% RH ?2.0% FS Cylinder Pressure AVL QC33C 0 ? 200 bar 0.18% FS Table 3.3 ? List of Instruments Engine air flow is measured using a Meriam Instruments model 50MW20-1.5 laminar flow element (LFE) device. This instrument provides a measurement of actual combustion air volumetric flow rate. Air flow through the element results in a pressure drop across the device, which is measured using an Omega PX653 differential pressure transducer. Volumetric air flow rate is a quadratic function of differential pressure, coefficients for which are given by the manufacturer's calibration document, valid to two atmospheres absolute inlet pressure. In order to convert the volumetric flow rate into a mass flow rate, combustion air temperature and pressure are measured upstream of the LFE, using a K-type 55 thermocouple and a PCB Piezotronics model 1501B01FB3BARA pressure transducer. Intake manifold absolute pressure (MAP) is measured using a PCB Piezotronics model 1501B01FB3BARA pressure transducer. This transducer provides measurement in the range 0-3 bar absolute, with linear output in the range 0-5 VDC. Accuracy is ?0.25% FS, and resolution is 0.01% FS. The response time of this instrument is < 1 ms, and it also serves to provide a reference for cylinder pressure measurement. Combustion air relative humidity is measured using an Ohmic instruments model HC-610 capacitive sensing transducer, with integrated signal conditioning. This instrument provides linear output in the range 0-5 VDC corresponding to 0-100% relative humidity. The accuracy of the instrument is ?2% FS, with 0.5% repeatability. Crankshaft position and speed are measured using a US Digital model H1-360 optical shaft encoder. This encoder is used to index engine position for ignition timing control as well as for cylinder pressure measurements. An Innovate Motorsports model LC-1 wideband controller and a Bosch LSU4.2 5-wire universal exhaust gas oxygen (UEGO) sensor provides an air-fuel ratio measurement. The UEGO sensor is capable of providing measurements in the range of 0.7-2.0 RAFR, but the controller is programmed to provide linear output of 0-5 VDC in the range 0.7-1.52 RAFR. The combination of these two 56 instruments provides accuracy of 0.01 ? in the range 0.8 < ? < 1.2, and 0.05 ? elsewhere. 3.9.2 Cylinder Pressure Measurement Cylinder pressure data are measured using a piezoelectric pressure transducer that is flush-mounted with respect to the fire deck in the cylinder head and directly exposed to the interior of the combustion chamber. These measurements are termed high speed, are crankshaft synchronous, and are sampled at a rate of 1440 per engine cycle, resulting in 0.5 crank angle degree resolution. The transducer model is AVL QC33C, with a measurement range of 0-200 bar and natural frequency of 70 kHz. Calibrated sensitivity of the transducer is 28.98 pC/bar and linearity is ?0.18% FS. The transducer produces an electric charge in response to deformation of the piezoelectric crystal element caused by displacement of the transducer diaphragm during changes in cylinder pressure. Since this charge quickly decays, and is not representative of absolute cylinder pressure, the transducer is a dynamic measurement device, and must be referenced to a measured absolute pressure in order to produce meaningful measurement. The electric charge produced in the transducer is measured by a charge amplifier that converts the charge signal into a voltage signal to be passed on to the data acquisition system. The charge amplifier is an AVL model 3057-A01. Pressure referencing, or pegging, is accomplished in the DynoServer application. For each unit request for data to be displayed on the client PC user interface, a single engine cycle of cylinder pressure is acquired. The cylinder pressure at BDC is 57 pegged to MAP at BDC. When a request to record data for saving to disk is sent to the server PC, 100 consecutive engine cycles of cylinder pressure are acquired, the pressure at BDC for each of the 100 cycles being referenced to MAP at BDC for a single engine cycle acquired initially upon receipt of the request. The 100 engine cycles of pegged cylinder pressure data are then stored to disk. 3.9.3 Exhaust Emissions Measurement Gaseous exhaust emissions species concentrations are measured using a modular emissions measurement system, or emissions bench, capable of detecting carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons (total and methane only), oxides of nitrogen, and oxygen. The emissions bench is comprised of four separate analyzers, as well as sample transport and conditioning systems. The emissions bench is an AVL model GEM 110 CEB NA II. Exhaust emissions are sampled from the exhaust tube approximately 1 m from the exhaust port on the cylinder head. The sample is directed first to a heated filter in the test cell, and along a heated sample line to the emissions bench located in the operator room. A vacuum pump and electrically actuated valves divide the sample for direction to the appropriate analyzers. The emissions bench features an integral PC and control software that handles the operation of the analyzers and auxiliary equipment. The emissions bench communicates with the test cell server PC via TCP/IP for the transmission of measurement data to the data acquisition system. All concentration measurements are reported as a sample volume fraction, on either a wet or dry basis. 58 Total hydrocarbon and methane concentrations are measured using a flame ionization detector (FID). The portion of the sample entering this analyzer is drawn directly from the heated sample line, without any further conditioning. As a result, hydrocarbon emissions are measured on a wet basis. The analyzer is a Pierburg model FID 4000, and provides a measurement range of 0-4300 ppm for methane, and 0-1500 ppm for total hydrocarbons. Methane concentration is reported on a single carbon atom basis, and total hydrocarbon concentration on a three carbon atom basis. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide concentrations are measured using a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) device. Prior to entering this analyzer, the sample is directed through a cooler/dehumidifier unit to remove water from the exhaust sample. The resulting measurement is therefore reported on a dry basis. The NDIR analyzer is an ABB model Uras 14. The measurement range is 0-3000 ppm for carbon monoxide and 0-15.00% for carbon dioxide. Oxygen concentration is measured using a paramagnetic analyzer. The sample is conditioned in the cooler/dehumidifier unit prior to entering the device, resulting in a dry basis measurement. The paramagnetic analyzer is an ABB model Magnos 106, providing a measurement range of 0-22.00%. Oxides of nitrogen are measured using a chemiluminescence detector (CLD). The exhaust sample is not conditioned prior to entering the analyzer, resulting in a wet basis measurement. The chemiluminescence detector is an AVL model CLD 4000. The measurement range is 0-2600 ppm for nitric oxide and total oxides of nitrogen. 59 Each emissions analyzer is checked for zero and span accuracy at the start and end of a testing session. Zero and span values are recorded and used as a means to check against analyzer drift. The zero gas is pure nitrogen, and dedicated span gases are provided for each analyzer. Dual range (low & high) span checks are performed for the NDIR, FID, and CLD. Additional gases provided for the FID are fuel, which is 40.00% by volume hydrogen with the balance helium, and oxidizer, which is hydrocarbon-free air. 60 Chapter 4 ? Data Processing and Analysis Raw data output from the data acquisition system are stored to disk and processed on a PC in order to compute engine operation parameters of interest, and to create graphics for visualization of data. All data processing is carried out in the MATLAB computing environment. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the raw data consist of comma separated value text files of which there are one containing all the low-speed data collected in a test session, as well as a number, one for each data point collected, containing crank-angle based cylinder pressure data. The routines used to process the low-speed and cylinder pressure data are distinct, and each is based on a number of functions that are called in order to return results. In this chapter, the computed parameters and the methods by which they are calculated will be described. 4.1 Low-Speed Data Processing Volumetric combustion air flow rate is calculated by a correlation relating the pressure drop across the laminar flow element in conjunction with a combustion air viscosity correction factor. Representing air volume flow by ! V.air , and LFE pressure drop by ! "PLFE , and viscosity correction factor by ! c ? , the expression is given by ! V.air = ( B"#PLFE + C"#PLFE2 )" c ? 4.1 where B and C are coefficients particular to the LFE calibration. The viscosity correction factor ! c ? is given by 61 ! c ? =? s t d? f 4.2 where ! ?std is the standard viscosity of air, and ! ? f is the viscosity, in micropoise, of air flowing in the LFE, the value of which is given by ! ? f =14.58" T32110.4 + T 4.3 with ! T being the air temperature in Kelvins. The saturation pressure of water ! p sat , H 2 O , in kilopascals, is calculated by an expression found in the ASHRAE handbook[53]. The partial pressure of water, ! pH 2 O is then determined from the relative humidity measurement and the calculated water saturation pressure. The routine uses the inlet air temperature, total inlet air pressure, and the partial pressure of water to calculate the specific humidity and density of the combustion air. The dry air pressure is given by ! pair,dry = ptot " pH 2 O 4.4 and the density of the combustion air is determined from the expression ! "air =(p air, dryR air+p H 2O #M H 2 OR)T air 4.5 where ! R air and ! R are the specific gas constant for air and the universal gas constant, respectively, and ! MH 2 O is the molecular weight of water. The values of the constants can be found in the computer code in appendix A. The specific humidity of the combustion air is determined from the expression 62 ! " =MH 2 OMair,dry#pH 2 Opair,dry 4.6 Air mass flow is calculated as the product of air density and air volume flow ! m.air = " air #V.air 4.7 and dry air mass flow is given by the expression ! m.air , dry =11 + "m.air 4.8 Relative air-fuel ratio, or ?, for an operating condition is available from one of two sources: the fuel and air mass flow data, or from the UEGO sensor. For the purposes of this work, all air-fuel ratio comparisons will be made using dry ? calculated from fuel and air mass flow, in the following manner ! " =m.air,drym.fuelA /F( )stoich 4.9 where ! A / F( )stoich is the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio as described in the second chapter. The routine features a function to calculate emissions species mass flow rates from measured concentration data, along with a carbon balance check. The emissions mass flows are calculated according to SAE J1088[54], which details methodology for determining a correction factor for NOx mass production based on combustion air humidity. In addition, the standard details calculation of exhaust H2 concentration, and a wet-dry conversion factor. The wet-dry conversion factor is required since some analyzers sample wet exhaust, while others sample exhaust that has been passed through the emissions bench chiller. The NOx humidity correction factor is given by 63 ! K H =11"0.0329 # "10.71( ) 4.10 where ! " in this expression is specified in units of [g/kg] and 10.71 g/kg is the standard value of atmospheric humidity. Exhaust H2 concentration is given by the expression ! H 2[ ] exh =12H / C( ) fuel " CO[ ] exh + CO 2[ ] exh( )CO[ ] exh + 3 " CO 2[ ] exh( ) 4.11 where ! H / C( ) fuel is the fuel hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, and ! S[ ] exh denotes the exhaust concentration of species ?S? in percent. The wet-dry conversion factor is calculated by ! K =11+ 0.005" CO[ ]exh + CO2[ ]exh( )" H /C( ) fuel # 0.01" H2[ ]exh 4.12 The wet-dry conversion factor represents the number of moles of dry sample as a fraction of the total number of moles in the wet sample, and as a result ! H 2 O[ ]exh = 1 " K 4.13 The molar carbon balance is calculated according to the following ! CB =m.COMCO+ m.CO 2MCO 2+ m.THCMTHCm.fuelM fuel"nCn fuel 4.14 where ! M T H C is the molecular weight of the total hydrocarbon mixture in the exhaust, which is given by ! MTHC = MC + H / C( ) fuel"MH 4.15 64 The remainder of the low-speed data processing details can be gleaned from the code included in appendix A. The remainder of the code includes functionality to read raw data from text files, determine mean values and standard deviation of the sampled data, and to compute other parameters such as brake power, BSFC, brake thermal efficiency, and BMEP, which require only basic algebraic manipulation of sampled data. 4.2 Cylinder Pressure Data Processing In contrast to processing of low-speed data, where a handful of signals are manipulated to produce a similar number of operational parameters, processing of a single set cylinder of pressure data results in the generation of numerous parameters related to the pressure and heat release history of a set of engine cycles. The method of referencing the dynamic cylinder pressure measurement has already been discussed and is not part of the post-processing routine considered here. Cylinder volume as a function of crank angle is used by a number of functions included in the cylinder pressure processing routine. The instantaneous volume of the engine cylinder can be determined from geometric considerations according to the following expression ! V "( ) = V c +14#B 2$ ! + S2+ y "( )% & ' ( ) * 4.16 where ! y "( ) =S2cos" + !2 # S2$ % & ' ( ) 2sin2"$ % & ' ( ) 12 4.17 65 In these two expressions, ! V c is the clearance volume, ! B is the bore, ! S is the stroke, ! ! is the connecting rod length, and ! y "( ) is the displacement of the piston above its bottom dead centre position. Cylinder pressure is read from the text file and the values assigned to a raw cylinder pressure variable containing data for all 100 cycles collected. The raw data are passed to a function that determines for each cycle the maximum value of cylinder pressure and the angle at which it occurs, termed the peak cylinder pressure and crank angle of peak cylinder pressure. Indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) is a parameter that represents the ability of an engine to perform work, independent of its volumetric displacement. For the purposes of clarity, important variations of this term will be discussed. Net indicated mean effective pressure (NIMEP), which considers the entire engine cycle, is represented mathematically by the following expression ! NIMEP =PdV"V s 4.18 where ! P is the cylinder pressure, ! V is the cylinder volume, and ! V s is the swept volume of the engine cylinder. A pressure ? volume representation in log-space of an engine cycle is depicted in figure 4.1. 66 log Cylinder Volume [?]log Cylinder Pressure [?] ExpansionCompressionExhaustIntake Figure 4.1 ? log(P) ? log(v) Diagram NIMEP is then representative of the area within both the work and pumping loops of the engine cycle. Gross indicated mean effective pressure (GIMEP) represents then the area inside the work loop, and pumping mean effective pressure (PMEP), the area inside the pumping loop. It should be noted in this case that since the pumping loop follows a counterclockwise direction, the value of PMEP is negative. The three variations on IMEP are related by ! NIMEP = GIMEP + PMEP 4.19 The routine calculates all three of these quantities for each engine cycle. For the purpose of quantifying combustion stability, the coefficient of variation of gross indicated mean effective pressure (COV of GIMEP) is used. This quantity represents the variation in gross indicated work from cycle to cycle in a given sample. 67 For any processing which makes use of the derivative of cylinder pressure, it is desirable to filter the raw cylinder pressure to remove any high frequency components arising due to gas dynamic effects in the engine cylinder or electrical interference on the transducer signal line. To this end, a Gaussian filter function was implemented, and the raw pressure data were processed and stored as a separate low-pass filtered cylinder pressure variable. The cut-off frequency used was approximately 3.5% of the crank-synchronous sampling frequency, ranging from 625 Hz at 1500 rpm to 1042 Hz at 2500 rpm, at which the filter was designed to provide 3 dB attenuation. The routine includes a function that computes the discrete derivative of filtered cylinder pressure, and identifies the maximum positive rate of change of cylinder pressure with respect to crank angle, which is termed the maximum rate of pressure rise. The function also records the crank angle value at which this maximum occurs. A heat release function computes the discrete derivatives of cylinder volume and cylinder pressure, and calculates the derivative of heat release with respect to crank angle. The expression used is derived from the 1st law of thermodynamics, and considers a closed system with no heat transfer across the system boundary. ! dQd "=## $1P "( )dVd "+1# $1V "( )dPd " 4.20 Here ! " is the ratio of specific heats for the working fluid, which is assumed constant with a value of 1.30. This expression represents the net heat release rate, or heat release rate less rate of heat transfer to the cylinder walls and rate of enthalpy transfer by mass leakage from the cylinder. The function performs 68 numerical integration of heat release rate in order to give the cumulative heat release. The value of cumulative heat release is pegged to zero at the angle of intake valve closing (IVC). The maximum rate of heat release is calculated as well as the crank angle at which it occurs. The crank angles at which cumulative heat release has progressed to 5%, 10%, 50%, and 95% for the each cycle is calculated by determining the crank angle at which cumulative heat release most closely matches the corresponding fraction of interest. For the purpose of this work, the ignition delay period is defined as the difference between the crank angle of 5% cumulative heat release and the ignition event. The combustion duration is the difference between the crank angle of 95% and 5% cumulative heat release. The polytropic coefficients of compression and expansion are determined by determining the slope of the log(P) ? log(V) line between IVC and -61 degCA ATDC, and 61 degCA ATDC and EVO, respectively. The remainder of the routine is concerned with storing variables to the MATLAB workspace and to storing results to disk. Complete code for the routine is included in appendix A. 4.3 Uncertainty Analysis The accuracies of the instruments used in the experimental work were detailed in the previous chapter. However many of the parameters of interest in the analysis of engine operating data result from compound calculations, through which process the errors of multiple measurements are propagated to the result. To calculate error bounds for each data point would be intensive and to depict each 69 on figures would detract from visual clarity. Rather, a set of experimental uncertainty bounds will be presented for relevant performance parameters based on the uncertainties of the measurements from which they are calculated. The uncertainty for high and low values of the parameters will be compared, and can subsequently be used as a guide for interpreting experimental results. If a set of measurements x1, x2, ?, xn is made and are used as independent variables in a function to calculate a result R such that ! R = R x 1 , x 2, ..., x n( ) 4.21 then the uncertainty of the result is given by[55] ! w R =" R" x 1w 1# $ % & ' ( 2+" R" x 2w 2# $ % & ' ( 2+ ... +" R" x nw n# $ % & ' ( 2) * + + , - . . 12 4.22 where wR is the uncertainty in the result, and w1, w2,?, wn are the uncertainties in the independent variables. The primary performance variables for which it is desired to establish uncertainty limits are dry air-fuel ratio, brake specific fuel consumption, and emissions species mass flows. Numerous intermediate parameters must be calculated in order to arrive at many of these results, as illustrated in figure 4.2. The uncertainty analysis was performed for air mass flow, fuel mass flow, dry air-fuel ratio, NOx & CH4 emission mass flows, and brake power. The analysis results for emissions mass flow and brake power were extended to provide uncertainty bounds for brake specific emissions species mass flows. A sample analysis for air-fuel ratio uncertainty is provided in appendix D, by which method all results were produced. 70 Figure 4.2 ? Propagation Of Uncertainty Through Compound Calculation Point Engine Speed Inlet Air Pressure Throttle Fuel Mass Flow Air Mass Flow [-] [rpm] [bar] [%] [kg/hr] [kg/hr] 1 1500 1 50% 0.729 12.91 2 1500 1 100% 0.989 17.75 3 1500 1 100% 0.757 18.59 4 2000 1 100% 1.166 20.81 5 2000 1 100% 0.884 21.65 6 2500 1 100% 1.645 29.25 7 2500 1 100% 1.250 30.14 8 1500 1.75 100% 1.799 34.00 9 1500 1.75 100% 1.449 33.64 10 2000 1.75 100% 2.146 42.21 11 2000 1.75 100% 1.681 41.24 Table 4.1 ? Engine Operating Points for Experimental Result Uncertainty Analysis 71 Fuel Mass Flow Air Mass Flow Value Uncertainty Value Uncertainty Point [kg/hr] [kg/hr] % [kg/hr] [kg/hr] % 1 0.729 0.041 5.6% 12.91 0.19 1.5% 2 0.989 0.041 4.1% 17.75 0.23 1.3% 3 0.757 0.041 5.4% 18.59 0.24 1.3% 4 1.166 0.041 3.5% 20.81 0.26 1.2% 5 0.884 0.041 4.6% 21.65 0.26 1.2% 6 1.645 0.041 2.5% 29.25 0.34 1.2% 7 1.250 0.041 3.3% 30.14 0.34 1.1% 8 1.799 0.041 2.3% 34.00 0.37 1.1% 9 1.449 0.041 2.8% 33.64 0.36 1.1% 10 2.146 0.041 1.9% 42.21 0.44 1.0% 11 1.681 0.041 2.4% 41.24 0.42 1.0% ! Brake Power Value Uncertainty Value Uncertainty Point [-] [-] % [kW] [kW] % 1 1.07 0.06 5.7% 2.875 0.008 0.3% 2 1.08 0.05 4.3% 4.003 0.008 0.2% 3 1.48 0.08 5.5% 3.035 0.008 0.2% 4 1.08 0.04 3.7% 4.451 0.010 0.2% 5 1.48 0.07 4.7% 3.163 0.010 0.3% 6 1.07 0.03 2.7% 6.305 0.013 0.2% 7 1.46 0.05 3.4% 4.697 0.013 0.3% 8 1.14 0.03 2.5% 7.928 0.008 0.1% 9 1.40 0.04 3.0% 6.814 0.008 0.1% 10 1.19 0.03 2.2% 9.301 0.010 0.1% 11 1.48 0.04 2.6% 8.074 0.010 0.1% BSNOx BSCH4 Value Uncertainty Value Uncertainty Point [g/kWh] [g/kWh] % [g/kWh] [g/kWh] % 1 11.5 0.20 1.8% 3.53 0.12 3.3% 2 11.0 0.20 1.8% 5.23 0.12 2.2% 3 0.6 0.06 9.6% 11.10 0.16 1.4% 4 5.9 0.21 3.6% 3.32 0.12 3.6% 5 0.2 0.06 24.9% 11.96 0.18 1.5% 6 5.5 0.21 3.8% 3.72 0.12 3.2% 7 0.4 0.06 15.9% 10.23 0.16 1.6% 8 10.6 0.19 1.8% 4.50 0.11 2.4% 9 3.0 0.04 1.5% 7.65 0.12 1.6% 10 7.0 0.20 2.9% 4.10 0.12 2.9% 11 3.5 0.05 1.4% 8.21 0.13 1.6% Table 4.2 ? Uncertainty Values for Performance Parameters at Selected Data Points 72 Table 4.1 shows the data points that were selected for the uncertainty analysis. These data points represent the range of conditions over which the engine was operated during the course of the experimental work, in particular, each of three engine speeds, the extremes of air and fuel mass flows, rich and lean air-fuel ratios, and high and low exhaust emissions concentrations. The data points in table 4.1 are enumerated solely for the purpose of cross-referencing with uncertainty results in table 4.2. The uncertainty analysis indicates that key performance parameters can be calculated with reasonable accuracy given the experimental uncertainty of the available measurements. In particular, the air-fuel ratio calculation using air and fuel mass flows provides a result with comparable accuracy to that of a wide-band exhaust oxygen sensor, particularly at lean air-fuel ratios. Brake power is calculated with particular accuracy due to the inherent low uncertainty of the load cell device used for measuring brake torque, and the highly accurate engine speed measurement from the crankshaft optical encoder. Brake specific emissions mass flow results are accurate to less than 5% except for values of BSNOx below 1 g/kWh. The uncertainty values for raw emissions mass flows are nearly identical to those for brake specific emissions mass flow because of the negligible uncertainty imparted by brake torque featuring as an independent variable in those calculations. Experimental results can now be interpreted in the context of the uncertainty of the corresponding calculations, and meaningful conclusions drawn about the significance of the results. 73 Chapter 5 ? Experimental Results and Discussion 5.1 Methodology For each combustion chamber design investigated, the methodology used to map performance was to operate the engine over the entire range of viable air-fuel ratios and ignition timing angles. This technique gives rise to the concept of a limit space of a combustion chamber, the space comprised of the entire range of air-fuel ratios and ignition timing angles over which the engine can be acceptably operated. Engine operation limits consist of a variety of imposed physical and performance boundaries, such as exhaust gas temperature, combustion stability, peak cylinder pressure, combustion knock intensity, fuel and air delivery limitations, exhaust emission concentrations, and thermal efficiency. Limit spaces are useful not only for determining what performance is achievable for a given combustion chamber, but also for consideration of what engine control capability must be furnished in order to achieve operation at a desired operating point. As an example, if it is desired to operate a given combustion chamber at the lean limit, not only must the air-fuel ratio control system be able to maintain such at the desired point, but the ignition system must be able to provide a spark within the required range of ignition timing angles. In practice, this becomes particularly important when engine operation is desired in a region of the limit space where the boundaries intersect in such a fashion as to require precise control of operational characteristics in order to maintain operation within acceptable limits. 74 For this experimental work, the approach taken was to set up engine operation at a certain engine speed and inlet air pressure condition, and to vary the ignition timing angle between the retarded and advanced limits at a given air-fuel ratio. Air-fuel ratio was varied from approximately ? = 1.1 to the lean limit in increments of roughly ?? = 0.1, for a total of five or six distinct air-fuel ratios for each engine speed ? inlet pressure condition. Since the lowest exhaust concentrations of NOx are achieved at air-fuel ratios approaching the lean limit, the target increment was reduced to ?? = 0.05 as the target air-fuel ratio approached the lean limit in order to provide enhanced resolution in this region of high interest. Air-fuel ratio was adjusted by means of controlling the fuel mass flow rate given the air flow provided by the inlet conditions. All data were collected with wide-open intake throttle. The range of possible ignition timing angles for each air-fuel ratio was divided into increments of between six and twelve settings between the retarded and advanced limits. The intent was to provide ignition timing angle resolution of no less than 4 degCA, though in most cases resolution was 2 ? 3 degCA, in order to resolve the MBT point with sufficient accuracy. In the course of this investigation, the ignition timing was limited on the retarded end by combustion stability, and on the advanced end by either NOx measurement saturation, or again by combustion stability in the cases of extremely lean air-fuel ratios. For operation under supercharged inlet conditions, greater difficulty was encountered when attempting to probe the limits of the combustion chamber, due to variability in time of engine air mass flow caused by compressor load cycling. For this reason, a test matrix of fuel mass flow rates and ignition timing angles was developed using the BIP chamber, and this matrix was repeated exactly for 75 the SJA and SJB chambers. In this sense, the data collected under supercharged conditions do not constitute a limit space for the chambers under these conditions. Nonetheless, useful performance and emissions comparisons can be drawn for the different chamber geometries based on the data collected. The limit space data collection was comprised of approximately 60 data points for those operating conditions with naturally aspirated (NA), wide-open throttle (WOT) inlet air conditions. MAP was such as provided by WOT operation at the given engine speed with NA inlet conditions. In total, NA operation was mapped for each of the three combustion chambers at three engine speeds: 1500, 2000 & 2500 rpm. In these cases, the boundaries of the limit space were carefully probed. For those operating conditions with supercharged inlet air conditions, approximately 45 data points were collected. MAP was targeted at 1.75 bar, though in practice the air pressure at the LFE varied between 1.73 and 1.80 bar due to effects of air compressor cycling. For each combustion chamber, supercharged operation was mapped at two engine speeds: 1500 & 2000 rpm. Testing any one combustion chamber at any given engine speed and inlet air condition combination was conducted as and considered as an experimental unit, resulting in 15 units of data collection. For each unit of experiments, five control data points were collected in order to track engine health by way of start-up and shut-down BMEP and motoring compression pressure. For the purposes of this work, engine performance is then compared between combustion chamber designs at a single engine speed/inlet air condition, i.e. between BIP, SJB & SJA chambers at 2000 rpm/NA. A table of all the data points considered, along with values of relevant performance parameters appears in appendix E. Maps of the 76 data points collected in the space of ignition timing and ? are presented in figures 5.1 ? 5.5. ?70 ?60 ?50 ?40 ?30 ?20 ?1011.11.21.31.41.51.6Ignition Timing [degCA ATDC]Lambda [?] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.1 ? Data Collection Map, 1500 rpm/NA 77 ?70 ?60 ?50 ?40 ?30 ?20 ?101.051.11.151.21.251.31.351.41.451.51.55Ignition Timing [degCA ATDC]Lambda [?] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.2 ? Data Collection Map, 2000 rpm/NA ?70 ?60 ?50 ?40 ?30 ?20 ?1011.051.11.151.21.251.31.351.41.451.5Ignition Timing [degCA ATDC]Lambda [?] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.3 ? Data Collection Map, 2500 rpm/NA 78 ?55 ?50 ?45 ?40 ?35 ?30 ?25 ?20 ?15 ?101.11.151.21.251.31.351.41.451.5Ignition Timing [degCA ATDC]Lambda [?] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.4 ? Data Collection Map, 1500 rpm/SC ?70 ?60 ?50 ?40 ?30 ?20 ?101.11.151.21.251.31.351.41.451.51.55Ignition Timing [degCA ATDC]Lambda [?] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.5 ? Data Collection Map, 2000 rpm/SC 79 5.2 Engine Compression Pressure and Brake Torque Verification Throughout the course of the experimental work, it was desired to track engine operation by means of collecting daily repeat points. To that effect, the engine was operated and data collected at 1500 rpm, with a throttle position of 50% in both a motoring state and with a fuel mass flow rate of 0.730 kg/hr. This was performed both at the beginning and end of a test session. Mean peak cylinder pressure at motoring and brake torque in the running state are depicted in figures 5.6 and 5.7. In the figure legends, BOT denotes ?beginning of test?, and EOT denotes ?end of test?, meaning points collected at the start and end of a particular test session. 2 4 6 8 10 12 141414.214.414.614.81515.215.415.615.816Test Session Number [?]Mean Peak Cylinder Pressure [bar] BIP BOTBIP EOTSJB BOTSJB EOTSJA BOTSJA EOT Figure 5.6 ? Mean Peak Cylinder Pressure, 1500 rpm, 50% Throttle, Motoring 80 2 4 6 8 10 12 141717.51818.51919.520Test Session Number [?]Brake Torque [Nm] BIP BOTBIP EOTSJB BOTSJB EOTSJA BOTSJA EOT Figure 5.7 ? Brake Torque, 1500 rpm, 50% Throttle, 0.730 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow Rate Mean peak cylinder pressure at motoring indicates engine compression pressure, and can be seen to have tracked relatively constantly from one session to another, and to have been roughly equivalent among the three chambers. This provides further validation that the engine geometric compression ratio was equivalent between the three chambers, and that piston ring sealing remained adequate throughout the course of testing. Brake torque under running conditions also tracked relatively constantly for a given chamber from one test session to another. While different chambers naturally are liable to exhibit different performance under the given inlet and fueling conditions, the data provides assurance that engine health remained acceptable throughout the course of testing. 81 5.3 Minimum NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off The ultimate trade-off between NOx production and thermal efficiency is a key metric in the analysis of combustion chamber performance. While BSFC decreases as the ignition timing angle is advanced toward the MBT point, the resulting increased rates of cylinder pressure rise result in elevated exhaust NOx concentrations. The elevation of exhaust NOx concentration and with it NOx mass flow counters the increase in brake power, and the net effect is increased BSNOx levels. Therefore minimizing NOx production and BSFC are mutually antagonistic, and the optimum chamber from this perspective is one where the trade-off curve has a locus that is closest to the origin. Table 5.1 shows the operational points that make up the trade-off curve for the BIP chamber at the 1500 rpm/NA case. The data are sorted in order of increasing BSFC, and include values of ? and ignition timing. The first three points feature intermediately lean air-fuel ratios with moderately to severely advanced ignition timings. The remainder of the data is drawn from the points with the leanest operable air-fuel ratio, with ignition timing angles spanning the entire range. Data points comprising the other trade-off curves follow a similar trend. ! Ignition Timing BSFC BSNOx - degCA ATDC g/kWh g/kWh 1.30 -33 222.69 12.95 1.30 -30 223.76 9.87 1.42 -35 226.86 3.77 1.54 -50 230.95 1.54 1.55 -45 234.00 1.08 1.55 -40 240.64 0.63 1.55 -35 251.42 0.39 1.56 -30 268.48 0.25 1.56 -25 299.69 0.19 Table 5.1 ? BIP Operational Points for NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 1500 rpm/NA 82 The NOx ? efficiency trade-offs for the three chambers (BIP, SJB, SJA) at the five operating cases (1500 rpm/NA, 2000 rpm/NA, 2500 rpm/NA, 1500 rpm/SC, 2000 rpm/SC) are shown in figures 5.8 ? 5.12. 220 240 260 280 300 320 34002468101214BSFC [g/kWh]BSNOx [g/kWh] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.8 ? NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 1500 rpm/NA 83 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380024681012141618BSFC [g/kWh]BSNOx [g/kWh] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.9 ? NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 2000 rpm/NA 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310024681012141618BSFC [g/kWh]BSNOx [g/kWh] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.10 ? NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 2500 rpm/NA 84 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240024681012BSFC [g/kWh]BSNOx [g/kWh] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.11 ? NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 1500 rpm/SC 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240024681012BSFC [g/kWh]BSNOx [g/kWh] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.12 ? NOx -Efficiency Trade-off, 2000 rpm/SC 85 The NOx ? efficiency trade-offs depicted for the five conditions generally depict some disparity between the three chambers at lower values of BSFC, with convergence of the curves at higher BSFC as the points are drawn from the leanest operating points with retarded ignition timing. For the 1500 rpm/NA and 2500 rpm/NA cases, the trend portrayed is the BIP chamber featuring the lowest trade-off, followed by the SJB chamber and then the SJA chamber. For the 2000 rpm/NA case, the SJB chamber shows the lowest trade-off, followed in order by the BIP and SJA chambers. For the 2000 rpm/SC case, the trade-offs follow nearly the same locus, the notable difference being that the range of BSFC covered by the SJA chamber is displaced to the left toward higher values than that for either the BIP or SJB chambers. While the SJA chamber always showed the highest BSFC operation in the trade-offs, it is difficult to reconcile the reversal of trend exhibited with the BIP and SJB chambers between the 1500 & 2500 rpm/NA and 2000 rpm/NA & 1500 rpm/SC cases. Closer examination of the trade-offs for 1500 rpm/NA and 1500 rpm/SC with the addition of the experimental uncertainty on BSFC calculated by the methodology detailed in chapter 4 gives some insight. These trade-off diagrams are shown in figures 5.13 and 5.14. At the lower end of the observed BSFC for the 1500 rpm/NA case, the experimental uncertainty on BSFC is between 10 and 11 g/kWh, or about 5%. The observed difference in BSFC between the three chambers is less than this for a given BSNOx level. Since repeat data points are not available due to the expansive test matrix of this investigation, statistical analysis of the trade-off curves is not possible. The experimental uncertainty represents the best available means for deciding whether the observed differences in BSFC portrayed 86 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 34002468101214BSFC [g/kWh]BSNOx [g/kWh] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.13 ? NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 1500 rpm/SC with Experimental Uncertainty 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240024681012BSFC [g/kWh]BSNOx [g/kWh] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.14 ? NOx ? Efficiency Trade-off, 1500 rpm/NA with Experimental Uncertainty 87 in the trade-off are meaningful. At the higher fuel mass flows associated with the 1500 rpm/SC case, the experimental uncertainty on BSFC amounts to approximately 2.5 ? 3% of the observed values, which again is higher than differences observed in BSFC for a given BSNOx level among the three chambers. The relatively small range for the BSFC scale on the figures compared with the BSNOx scale exaggerates observed differences. Therefore although differences were observed in the NOx ? efficiency trade-off, it would be tenuous to conclude that one chamber provided lower BSFC than another at a given level of BSNOx emission. 5.4 Combustion Stability and Air-Fuel Ratio The combustion stability characteristics of the three combustion chambers is compared among different operating conditions at an advanced ignition timing angle to provide insight into the effect of chamber geometry on the quality of combustion. The advanced ignition timing point is the more retarded of the following: 1. The ignition timing angle at which the exhaust NOx concentration saturated the CLD measurement; 2. The MBT ignition timing angle. Table 5.2 shows the advanced ignition timing angles for the three chambers at the 1500 rpm/NA case, and indicates whether the points are NOx measurement limited or at MBT timing. 88 BIP SJB SJA ! Ignition Timing Advance Limit ! Ignition Timing Advance Limit ! Ignition Timing Advance Limit 1.08 -15.5 NOx 1.08 -22 NOx 1.07 -23 NOx 1.19 -23 NOx 1.21 -33 MBT 1.19 -32 MBT 1.30 -33 MBT 1.30 -40 MBT 1.29 -42 MBT 1.41 -40 MBT 1.40 -49 MBT 1.42 -54 MBT 1.46 -47 MBT 1.45 -54 MBT 1.46 -62 MBT 1.54 -50 MBT 1.52 -48 MBT 1.53 -53 MBT Table 5.2 ? Ignition Timing Advance Limit, 1500 rpm/NA Figure 5.15 shows COV of GIMEP for the 1500 rpm/NA case. For ? up to 1.3, the SJB chamber was observed to have the least cycle-to-cycle variability, with the values for SJA and BIP being comparable. At air-fuel ratios of ? = 1.4 and above, the BIP chamber provides the lowest COV of GIMEP, while SJA and SJB are similar. Both the SJA and SJB chambers show COV of GIMEP near 5% at ? = 1.5, while that of the BIP chamber is less than 2.5% at the leanest point observed. 89 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.701234567Lambda [?]COV of GIMEP [%] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.15 ? COV of GIMEP, 1500 rpm/NA, Advanced Timing For the 2000 & 2500 rpm/NA conditions, the BIP chamber provided the best combustion stability across the range of air-fuel ratios, albeit matched by the SJB chamber at 2000 rpm for ? < 1.3. At 2000 rpm and the lean limit, the BIP chamber exhibited COV of GIMEP of 4% compared with 8% and 10% for SJB and SJA, respectively. At the lean limit at 2500 rpm, COV of GIMEP for the BIP chamber was 6%, versus 9.5% for the SJA and SJB chambers. For the supercharged operating conditions, the response of COV of GIMEP to ? was significantly different than that under naturally aspirated conditions. Figure 5.16 depicts the 1500 rpm/SC case, and illustrates that the general trend for the BIP and SJB chambers was a reduction in COV of GIMEP with increasing ?. This phenomenon is due to the fact that at the richer air-fuel ratios, the ignition 90 timing could not be advanced close enough to what would be the true MBT point without saturating the NOx measurement. As the air-fuel ratio was leaned out, increased ignition advance was possible, and thus a higher degree of stability could be achieved. COV of GIMEP for the SJA chamber was elevated above that for the BIP and SJB chambers for all air-fuel ratios above ? = 1.25, and was never much below 3%. This is indicative of generally poorer combustion stability characteristics of the SJA chamber. 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.500.511.522.533.544.55Lambda [?]COV of GIMEP [%] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.16 ? COV of GIMEP, 1500 rpm/SC, Advanced Timing At both engine speeds, the BIP chamber exhibited the lowest degree of instability. Figure 5.16 shows that for ? > 1.25, COV of GIMEP for both the BIP and SJB chambers decreases as ? increases, remaining below 2.5% in this range of ?, while that for the SJA chamber increases, rising to approximately 5% at the leanest point. 91 5.5 Gaseous Emissions, Thermal Efficiency versus Air-Fuel Ratio Brake-specific emission of NOx and CH4 as well as brake-specific fuel consumption are strongly dependent on air-fuel ratio. Comparisons between the three chambers are made for the range of air-fuel ratios under two ignition timing conditions. The first condition is the advanced ignition timing point considered in the previous section. The second is a retarded ignition timing angle, operation at which the COV of GIMEP is closest to 4%. These two ignition timings span the majority of the range investigated, and consideration of the two serves to depict operation close to the limits of the particular chamber design. Figure 5.17 & 5.18 show BSFC versus ? for the 1500 rpm/NA case at the advanced and retarded ignition timing points, respectively. At both timings, all chambers feature minimum BSFC in the neighbourhood of ? = 1.3. It is to be expected that BSFC is lower at the advanced point than at the retarded point, since the advanced point is either identically the MBT timing point, or is closest thereto. This representation of the BSFC response of the three chambers must also be taken in context of the magnitude of experimental uncertainty, which is roughly 5% under naturally aspirated conditions, and 3% under supercharged conditions. The differences portrayed in the following figures are certainly within that range, the exception being at the leanest point, at which the BSFC with the BIP chamber is discernibly lower. 92 5 505 504 503 502 501 50. 50I44g44143g43142g42141g411nito iTm?[deCATmD]Lab[TTdBPeSdeSJ Figure 5.17 ? BSFC, 1500 rpm/NA, Advanced Timing 5 505 504 503 502 501 50. 50I43142g42141g4114.gnito iTm?[deCATmD]Lab[TTdBPeSdeSJ Figure 5.18 ? BSFC, 1500 rpm/NA, Retarded Timing 93 It can be observed that the advanced and retarded data points with leanest air-fuel ratio for all three chambers are the same. This is simply a result of the fact that, at lean air-fuel ratios, COV of GIMEP is generally elevated, and what would be considered relatively unstable combustion under richer conditions must be expected under such lean conditions. It is also noted that the BSFC response at the retarded timing point is more erratic than at the advanced point. Figures 5.19 & 5.20 show BSNOx and BSCH4 versus ? for the 1500 rpm/NA case at the advanced and retarded points. The SJB chamber shows the lowest brake-specific emissions of both species as a function of air-fuel ratio across the range of air-fuel ratio, for both ignition timing points. The reduction in BSCH4 observed with the SJB chamber is significant in the range between ? = 1.1 and ? = 1.4. The SJA chamber shows a sharper rise in BSCH4 over the other two chambers at the leanest point. 94 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7024681012141618Lambda [?]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.19 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 1500 rpm/NA, Advanced Timing 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7051015Lambda [?]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.20 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 1500 rpm/NA, Retarded Timing 95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5024681012141618Lambda [?]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.21 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 2500 rpm/NA, Advanced Timing Similar responses can be observed for the 2000 & 2500 rpm/NA cases. Figure 5.21 shows the brake-specific gaseous emissions against air-fuel ratio at the advanced ignition timing point for the 2500 rpm/NA case. While it is difficult to say if there is an advantage of one chamber over another for BSNOx emission, one would certainly conclude that the SJB chamber resulted in the lowest BSCH4 emissions across the entire range of air-fuel ratio. Under supercharged conditions, the SJA chamber showed higher BSCH4 emissions, but significantly lower BSNOx emissions than either the BIP or SJB chambers. The SJB chamber again demonstrated the lowest BSCH4 emissions across the entire air-fuel ratio range. Figures 5.22 & 5.23 show the responses of BSFC and brake-specific gaseous emissions, respectively, against air-fuel ratio, for 96 the 1500 rpm/SC case at the advanced timing point. The significantly lower BSNOx emission with the SJA chamber can be reconciled when the elevated combustion instability discussed previously is taken into consideration (see Figure 5.16). Due to the mass flow averaging effect of exhaust emissions sampling, NOx emission is apparently low; however it is likely that high cycle-to-cycle variability results in intermittently poor flame propagation and low in-cylinder temperatures with associated low NOx production. This theory is consistent with the higher BSCH4 emission associated with the SJA chamber. 97 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5200205210215220225230235Lambda [?]BSFC [g/kWh] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.22 ? BSFC, 1500 rpm/SC, Advanced Timing 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.53456789101112Lambda [?]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.23 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 1500 rpm/SC, Advanced Timing 98 5.6 Gaseous Emissions versus Thermal Efficiency While the NOx ? thermal efficiency trade-off is useful for comparing chamber performance as ignition timing and air-fuel ratio are varied along some locus in order to minimize those parameters, it does not portray a complete picture of chamber performance. Although it has been shown that minimization of NOx competes directly with maximizing thermal efficiency, emission of methane does not respond in a monotonic fashion with varying BSFC. Additionally, methane emission with different chamber designs differs significantly. Rather taking the approach of determining the minimum trade-off, the response of NOx and CH4 as BSFC is varied will be examined for each fuel mass flow rate chosen in order to achieve the target air-fuel ratio increments. Intermediate target air-fuel ratios will be the focus of this section, with results at the lean limit to be examined in the next section. In these comparisons, results are presented on the basis of equivalent fuel mass flow for each chamber. Air-fuel ratios are not exactly equivalent because of variation in engine air mass flow with the different chambers; closed-loop air-fuel ratio control was not possible with the given experimental set-up. Table 5.3 shows the range of ? encountered for the three chambers at the speed/manifold pressure conditions and fuel mass flow rates depicted in figures in this section. 99 Condition Fuel Mass Flow Chamber Retarded Timing Advanced Timing Upper ! Lower ! BIP -17 -55 1.45 1.40 SJB -22 -66 1.42 1.38 0.780 kg/hr SJA -22 -68 1.44 1.41 BIP -25 -62 1.48 1.44 SJB -29 -66 1.46 1.44 1500 rpm/NA 0.757 kg/hr SJA -29 -68 1.48 1.46 BIP -20 -51 1.32 1.30 SJB -26 -60 1.32 1.30 0.981 kg/hr SJA -26 -64 1.32 1.29 BIP -23 -58 1.43 1.41 SJB -28 -57 1.44 1.42 2000 rpm/NA 0.912 kg/hr SJA -28 -57 1.44 1.42 BIP -23 -64 1.36 1.34 SJB -24 -56 1.37 1.36 1.330 kg/hr SJA -24 -56 1.36 1.35 BIP -27 -48 1.43 1.41 SJB -29 -53 1.43 1.42 2500 rpm/NA 1.285 kg/hr SJA -29 -53 1.42 1.40 BIP -24 -44 1.36 1.36 SJB -24 -44 1.39 1.38 1500 rpm/SC 1.50 kg/hr SJA -24 -44 1.42 1.41 BIP -36 -56 1.44 1.43 SJB -36 -56 1.44 1.44 2000 rpm/SC 1.747 kg/hr SJA -36 -56 1.47 1.46 Table 5.3 ? Ignition Timing Range & Resultant ! for Constant Fuel Mass Flow Rate Figures 5.24 & 5.25 show the brake-specific gaseous emissions as BSFC is varied by changing ignition timing for the 1500 rpm/NA case at 0.780 kg/hr and 0.757 kg/hr fuel mass flow, respectively. Two features of these plots merit discussion. Firstly, the left-most point on any curve is the MBT point; minimum BSFC is encountered at this operating point. Secondly, for any data point depicted on the plot, there are markers for BSCH4 and BSNOx that lie on exactly the same position on the BSFC axis. When making comparisons between operational points for the three chambers, the values of BSCH4 for any given value of BSNOx can be identified in this manner. 100 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 3200510152025BSFC [g/kWh]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.24 ? Brake Specific Emission Species, 1500 rpm/NA, 0.780 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 2900510152025BSFC [g/kWh]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.25 ? Brake Specific Emissions Species, 1500 rpm/NA, 0.757 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow 101 Though the data depicted in these figures do not represent the minimum trade-off between BSNOx and BSFC, the general nature of these curves and the minimum trade-off curve are alike. In these figures, the experimental uncertainty on BSFC varies less with observed BSFC value, since fuel mass flow is constant, and the efficiency changes are effected only by changes in ignition timing. Nevertheless, the value of 5% for experimental uncertainty is applicable here for observed BSFC data, and the figures must be interpreted in that context, given that observed differences in BSFC between the three chambers are small. At the 2000 rpm/NA condition, the BSCH4 emissions of the SJB chamber are again the lowest among the three chambers. Figure 5.26 shows the curves for fuel mass flow of 0.981 kg/hr, and figure 5.27 for fuel mass flow of 0.912 kg/hr. Figure 5.26 shows the SJB chamber provided the best BSNOx and BSCH4 emission characteristics between the most retarded ignition timing and the MBT point. Figure 5.27 shows equivalent BSNOx emissions characteristics between the BIP and SJB chambers in the same ignition timing regime, with the BSCH4 advantage held by the SJB chamber. The SJA chamber results show the highest BSCH4 for any given level of BSNOx. 102 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270 27502468101214161820BSFC [g/kWh]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh]2000 rpm, NA, level 3 BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.26 ? Brake Specific Emissions Species, 2000 rpm/NA, 0.981 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow 220 240 260 280 300 320 34002468101214BSFC [g/kWh]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.27 ? Brake Specific Emissions Species, 2000 rpm/NA, 0.912 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow 103 At the 2500 rpm/NA condition, the character of the responses is largely the same as that at the 1500 rpm/NA condition. Figures 5.28 & 5.29 show results for fuel mass flow rates of 1.330 and 1.285 kg/hr, respectively. At the 1500 rpm/SC condition at 1.50 kg/hr fuel mass flow rate, the three chambers operate with a similar BSNOx ? BSFC trade-off, though the ranges of observed BSFC for the BIP and SJB chambers are lower than that for the SJA chamber. The response is depicted in figure 5.30. The previously witnessed CH4 emission trend continues at this operating condition, with the minimum emission measured with the SJB chamber, and the maximum with the SJA chamber. At the 2000 rpm/SC condition at 1.747 kg/hr fuel mass flow (figure 5.31), all three chambers exhibit a similar NOx trade-off, and the SJB chamber a marginal BSCH4 advantage over the BIP chamber. The SJA chamber again operated with significantly elevated BSCH4 emissions. 104 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 31002468101214161820BSFC [g/kWh]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.28 ? Brake Specific Emissions Species, 2500 rpm/NA, 1.330 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320024681012BSFC [g/kWh]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.29 ? Brake Specific Emissions Species, 2500 rpm/NA, 1.285 kg/hr 105 200 210 220 230 240 250 260024681012BSFC [g/kWh]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.30 ? Brake Specific Emissions Species, 1500 rpm/SC, 1.500 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235024681012BSFC [g/kWh]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.31 ? Brake Specific Emission Species, 2000 rpm/SC, 1.747 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow 106 5.7 Lean Limit Performance The experimental results have confirmed that the lowest BSNOx emissions for any chamber design are encountered at the leanest air-fuel ratios. Of interest then is to determine whether the lean operating limit was extended by use of the squish jet chambers, and to compare performance of the three chambers when operating at the lean limit. In order to determine the fuel mass flow rate corresponding to the lean limit for each chamber, the ignition timing was set at an angle approximately 3 degCA advanced from the midpoint of the ignition timing range of the next lowest fuel mass flow rate. The fuel mass flow was then decreased until combustion suffered in such a way as to produce momentary spikes in exhaust CH4 concentration of sufficient magnitude to saturate the FID measurement. The fuel mass flow rate was then increased by approximately 0.01 kg/hr, and this was taken as the minimum possible operable rate for the given chamber. The resulting air-fuel ratio is taken as the lean limit. This technique was used to probe the lean limit for each chamber at the 1500 rpm/NA operating condition. At the 2000 & 2500 rpm/NA conditions, a different technique was employed, which will be discussed shortly. Due to the previously mentioned difficulties under supercharged operating conditions in achieving the extremely steady engine air flow required to probe the lean limit, no supercharged operating condition is considered for the analysis of lean limit performance. Table 5.4 shows the fuel mass flow rates and resulting range of air-fuel ratios for each chamber at the 1500 rpm/NA operating condition. At the lean limit, the ignition timing range was limited at the advanced and retarded extremes by misfire causing FID saturation. 107 Condition Chamber Fuel Mass Flow Retarded Timing Advanced Timing Upper ! Lower ! BIP 0.720 -25 -50 1.56 1.54 SJB 0.730 -31 -48 1.52 1.52 1500 rpm/NA SJA 0.734 -32 -53 1.53 1.53 Table 5.4 ? Lean Limit Fuel Mass Flow & Resulting ! Figure 5.32 shows the brake specific gaseous emissions species against BSFC at the 1500 rpm/NA condition. 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 31002468101214161820BSFC [g/kWh]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.32 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 1500 rpm/NA, Lean Limit At this operating condition, the chambers display indistinguishable NOx ? efficiency trade-off curves. Air-fuel ratio data indicate that extension of the lean limit was not made possible by use of either squish jet chamber. The highest brake thermal efficiency at the lean limit was achieved using the BIP chamber. 108 In conformity with observed performance at the intermediate air-fuel ratios, the SJB chamber exhibited a reduction in brake specific methane emissions at the lean limit. Though the ignition timing could not be advanced with any chamber so far as to determine the MBT timing point, the BSCH4 emissions with the SJB chamber were lower at the most advanced timing than were those with the BIP chamber, despite the fact that the best BSFC observed with the BIP chamber was 15 g/kWh lower than that with the SJB chamber, which is significant even in light of the experimental uncertainty. It is noteworthy that it was possible to advance the ignition timing further with the SJA chamber than with either chamber; nevertheless the SJA chamber operated with higher BSCH4 emissions across the range of BSFC, and with the lowest possible brake thermal efficiency of all the chambers. At the 2000 & 2500 rpm/NA conditions, the lean limit was probed with the BIP chamber, and the minimum fuel mass flow rate determined with the BIP chamber was used to compare performance with all three chambers. Table 5.5 shows the fuel mass flow rates and resulting air-fuel ratios for each chamber. Condition Chamber Fuel Mass Flow Retarded Timing Advanced Timing Upper ! Lower ! BIP 0.876 -30 -47 1.49 1.48 SJB 0.876 -33 -49 1.50 1.50 2000 rpm/NA SJA 0.876 -33 -49 1.51 1.51 BIP 1.250 -34 -42 1.47 1.46 SJB 1.250 -34 -44 1.47 1.47 2500 rpm/NA SJA 1.250 -34 -44 1.46 1.45 Table 5.5 ? Fuel Mass Flow and Resulting ! at Leanest Operation At the 2000 rpm/NA condition, the CH4 measurement was saturated throughout the duration of operation at the corresponding fuel mass flow rate. Therefore no 109 valid emissions comparison can be made with that chamber at the leanest air-fuel ratio of that operating condition. Figure 5.33 shows the brake specific gaseous emissions of the BIP and SJB chambers. 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 32002468101214BSFC [g/kWh]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4 Figure 5.33 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 2000 rpm/NA, 0.876 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow At this condition, the NOx ? Efficiency trade-off is largely the same for the two chambers, though the range of BSFC observed with the BIP chamber is lower than that with the SJB chamber. The SJB chamber again shows lower BSCH4 emissions, though the downward trend became erratic for both chambers as the timing was advanced to the extreme and sporadic misfires grew more frequent. Figure 5.34 shows the gaseous emissions at the 2500 rpm/NA operating condition. 110 250 260 270 280 290 300 310051015BSFC [g/kWh]BS Species Mass Flow [g/kWh] BIP NOxBIP CH4SJB NOxSJB CH4SJA NOxSJA CH4 Figure 5.34 ? Brake Specific Gaseous Emissions, 2500 rpm/NA, 1.250 kg/hr Fuel Mass Flow At this condition, BSCH4 emission with the SJA chamber was elevated over either of the other chambers as observed at other operating conditions and air-fuel ratios. However, the SJB chamber did not exhibit the heretofore prevalent BSCH4 advantage over the BIP chamber. The BSFC of the BIP chamber was superior to that of either squish-jet chamber, with comparable BSNOx emissions for all chambers. The air-fuel ratio at this fuel mass flow rate was remarkably comparable for all three chambers, as was the range of operable ignition timing angles. 111 5.8 Combustion Chamber Limit Space Returning to the previously mentioned concept of a limit space, the three chambers investigated in this work can be compared to gain insight into how the permissible operational space of the engine is affected by the choice of combustion chamber. If operational limits are chosen based on performance data considered thus far, suitable choices would be upper limits on BSNOx, COV of GIMEP, and BSCH4. Though for the purpose of this analysis the numerical values assigned to these limits are arbitrary, in practice they would be driven by constraints of a nature described in the introductory paragraph of this chapter. We shall choose a BSNOx limit of 10 g/kWh, a COV of GIMEP limit of 4%, and a BSCH4 limit of 7 g/kWh. ?24 ?26 ?84 ?86 ?14 ?16 ?04 ?060.640.00.040.10.140.80.840.25Tests eSisoseTSnNuTmbSbirm[]MoaNMSn?[SSmPkS CSy5ldBIOmE2IOJPA Figure 5.35 ? Limit Space for BIP Chamber, 1500 rpm/NA 112 Figure 5.35 shows the contrived limits projected in the space of exhaust air-fuel ratio and ignition timing angle for the BIP chamber. The three limits form a boundary roughly enclosing the interior of the limit space. The set of air-fuel ratios and ignition timing angles comprising the limit space is bounded to the left by BSNOx, to the right by COV of GIMEP, and to the top by BSCH4. Having defined the limit space and inspected an example thereof, the three chambers can be compared in this fashion, and observations made about the size and location of their respective limit spaces. Figure 5.36 shows the limit spaces at the 1500 rpm/NA condition. The interior of the limit space is coloured for ease of viewing, with BIP in blue, SJB in black, and SJA in red. Figure 5.36 ? Limit Diagram, 1500 rpm/NA 113 The 1500 rpm/NA limit diagram shows that the centroid of area for the squish jet chambers is more advanced in ignition timing than that for the BIP, which is at odds with previously reported results indicating that squish jet designs reduced the ignition advance requirement compared with the radially uniform squish design[43]. The limit spaces for the BIP and SJA chambers are of roughly equal area, with the BSNOx limit more advanced for the SJA chamber. The BIP chamber provided slightly extended lean combustion stability compared to the SJA chamber. The limit space for the SJB chamber is larger than that of either the BIP or SJA chamber. The SJB BSNOx limit lies along the same locus as that for the SJA chamber, while the COV of GIMEP limit is extended leaner than that of either the BIP or SJA chambers. Figures 5.37 & 5.38 show the limit diagrams for the 2000 & 2500 rpm/NA conditions, respectively. Figure 5.37 ? Limit Diagram, 2000 rpm/NA 114 Figure 5.38 ? Limit Diagram, 2500 rpm/NA In all cases, the SJA chamber resulted in the smallest limit space, the squish jet chambers favoured more advanced ignition timing than did the BIP chamber, and the BSNOx limit loci of the squish jet chambers were similar. The SJB chamber exhibited stable operation at leaner air-fuel ratios, although in the 2500 rpm/NA case, the BSCH4 limit constituted the lean operation threshold, rather than the COV of GIMEP limit. 5.9 In-Cylinder Analysis Having made some observations based on low-speed data about engine performance and emissions when operating with different combustion chamber designs, it would be beneficial to glean some insight into what in-cylinder 115 conditions might be responsible for the observed results. To that end, some of the comparisons made in section 5.6 will be revisited from the perspective of cylinder pressure and heat release traces, as well as some scalar parameters that can be computed therefrom. Table 5.6 shows relevant performance and combustion scalar parameters for the 1500 rpm/NA case operating at a fuel mass flow of 0.780 kg/hr. "#i denotes the mean ignition delay period, "#b the mean combustion duration, SOC the mean angle of start of combustion, and EOC the mean angle of end of combustion. It has already been observed that the squish jet chambers favour more advanced ignition timing compared with the BIP chamber. Inspection of the data shows, however, that the squish jet chambers operate with a significantly greater ignition delay period (35 ? 45 degCA) than does the BIP chamber (25 ? 35 degCA), and slightly greater combustion duration, as illustrated in Figure 5.39. The resulting ranges of SOC and EOC angles are comparable. 116 Chamber Point Ignition timing ! BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 COV of GIMEP "#i "#b SOC EOC 1 -55 1.42 230.29 17.03 6.05 1.4 34.5 50.5 -20.5 30 2 -50 1.40 228.84 16.30 6.36 1.1 30 48.5 -20 28.5 3 -47 1.41 226.48 13.34 6.62 1.0 31 49.5 -16 33.5 4 -44 1.41 226.07 10.81 7.28 1.1 27.5 50.5 -16.5 34 5 -40 1.41 225.40 7.24 8.00 1.3 28 52 -12 40 6 -35 1.42 226.86 3.77 8.89 2.5 27 45 -8 37 7 -32 1.42 229.84 2.50 9.13 2.8 31 55.5 -1 54.5 8 -29 1.42 233.44 1.78 9.07 3.4 24.5 50 -4.5 45.5 9 -26 1.43 238.67 1.19 9.20 4.1 31.5 65 5.5 70.5 10 -23 1.44 249.56 0.70 9.52 5.10 28 85 5 90 11 -20 1.44 264.32 0.48 9.77 6.5 27 61.5 7 68.5 BIP 12 -17 1.45 288.93 0.32 10.40 8.0 23.5 66 6.5 72.5 13 -66 1.39 240.21 21.41 3.24 2.2 43 54.5 -23 31.5 14 -63 1.38 237.97 19.30 3.37 1.9 40.5 54 -22.5 31.5 15 -59 1.39 233.59 14.79 3.86 1.4 38.5 58.5 -20.5 38 16 -54 1.40 229.86 8.65 5.12 1.3 42 53.5 -12 41.5 17 -49 1.40 228.76 5.97 5.104 1.8 37 58 -12 46 18 -45 1.40 230.62 3.34 6.89 2.1 40 48.5 -5 43.5 19 -41 1.41 233.51 2.14 7.37 3.1 32.5 50.5 -8.5 42 20 -37 1.41 237.99 1.24 7.65 3.5 38 63.5 1 64.5 21 -34 1.41 243.75 0.90 7.76 3.9 32 52 -2 50 22 -30 1.41 253.01 0.61 7.69 5.0 35 63.5 5 68.5 23 -26 1.41 266.23 0.43 7.60 7.5 35.5 63.5 9.5 73 SJB 24 -22 1.42 291.45 0.30 7.79 7.7 33.5 64 11.5 75.5 25 -68 1.41 241.12 19.50 5.60 2.1 42.5 55 -25.5 29.5 26 -66 1.41 239.74 19.70 5.35 2.0 40 52 -26 26 27 -63 1.41 236.71 15.32 6.04 1.6 41.5 53.5 -21.5 32 28 -59 1.42 233.46 10.55 7.19 1.3 45.5 51 -13.5 37.5 29 -54 1.42 232.25 6.72 8.20 1.7 34.5 52.5 -19.5 33 30 -50 1.43 232.97 4.36 9.26 2.1 36.5 63 -13.5 49.5 31 -46 1.43 236.07 2.52 10.00 3.4 36.5 54 -9.5 44.5 32 -42 1.44 240.47 1.57 10.71 4.1 38.5 54 -3.5 50.5 33 -38 1.43 245.98 1.10 10.88 4.8 34.5 67 -3.5 63.5 34 -34 1.44 253.87 0.66 11.29 6.4 33 69.5 -1 68.5 35 -30 1.44 269.20 0.43 11.67 7.8 36 66.5 6 72.5 36 -26 1.44 287.14 0.32 11.92 9.2 32.5 70 6.5 76.5 SJA 37 -22 1.44 316.79 0.27 12.44 10.1 32 64.5 10 74.5 Table 5.6 ? Performance & Combustion Parameters, 1500 rpm/NA, 0.780 kg/hr Fuel Flow 117 ?24 ?64 ?84 ?14 ?04 ?74 ?.47404148464245494Test tSsiotntseiNumebriro[b][Bak tSsiNumebr]iiqTIiTesi[mPkOqTIibSnEi[BaJAqiTesi[mPkOJAqibSnEi[BaJAriTesi[mPkOJAribSnEi[Ba Figure 5.39 ? Ignition Delay & Combustion Duration, 1500 rpm/NA, 0.780 kg/hr Fuel Flow If data points with nearly equal BSFC are selected from among those collected with the three different chambers, the cylinder pressure and heat release rate traces can be overlaid for comparative purposes. Choosing points 8, 19, & 29 from Table 5.6, the cylinder pressure and heat release rate traces are depicted in figures 5.40 and 5.41. Markers on the figure denote the angle of combustion process parameters; asterisk for ignition timing, triangle for SOC, and inverted triangle for EOC. 118 ?180 ?150 ?120 ?90 ?60 ?30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180051015202530354045Crank Angle [degCA ATDC]Cylinder Pressure [bar] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.40 ? Cylinder Pressure, 1500 rpm/NA, BSFC ~ 233 g/kWh Repeating the comparison for 2000 rpm/NA at 0.981 kg/hr fuel mass flow rate, the trend of increasing ignition delay with ignition timing advance is again observed, shown in figure 5.42, whereas the combustion duration is largely independent of ignition timing. The combustion duration is seen to be comparable between the three chambers, while the squish jet chambers exhibit greater ignition delay than the BIP chamber. 119 ?90 ?75 ?60 ?45 ?30 ?15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120?0.00500.0050.010.0150.020.025Crank Angle [degCA ATDC]Heat Release Rate [kJ/degCA] BIPSJBSJA Figure 5.41 ? Heat Release Rate, 1500 rpm/NA, BSFC ~ 233 g/kWh ?24 ?64 ?84 ?14 ?04 ?74 ?.47404148464245494Test tSsiotntseiNumebriro[b][Bak tSsiNumebr]iiqTIiTesi[mPkOqTIibSnEi[BaJAqiTesi[mPkOJAqibSnEi[BaJAriTesi[mPkOJAribSnEi[Ba Figure 5.42 ? Ignition Delay & Combustion Duration, 2000 rpm/NA, 0.981 kg/hr Fuel Flow 120 Using the same BSFC criterion to select points from the 2000 rpm/NA case for comparison of cylinder pressure and heat release rate traces, the pertinent data for the chosen points are shown in table 5.7. Chamber Ignition timing ! BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 COV of GIMEP "#i "#b SOC EOC BIP -23 1.32 251.98 1.32 6.83 3.6 24 53 1 54 SJB -29 1.32 246.16 1.26 5.20 3.6 29 54 0 54 SJA -33 1.32 249.81 1.34 7.49 4.8 33.5 52.5 0.5 53 Table 5.7 ? Performance & Combustion Parameters, 2000 rpm/NA, 0.981 kg/hr Fuel Flow Again the squish jet chambers exhibited longer ignition delay than did the BIP chamber, while the combustion duration for all three chambers was comparable. Together with the more advanced ignition timing angles favoured by the squish jet chambers, the resulting SOC and EOC angles are comparable. The cylinder pressure and heat release traces are shown in figures 5.43 & 5.44. 121 ?180 ?150 ?120 ?90 ?60 ?30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180051015202530Crank Angle [degCA ATDC]Cylinder Pressure [bar] Figure 5.43 ? Cylinder Pressure, 2000 rpm/NA, BSFC ~250 g/kWh ?90 ?75 ?60 ?45 ?30 ?15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120?505101520x 10?3Crank Angle [degCA ATDC]Heat Release Rate [kJ/degCA] Figure 5.44 ? Heat Release Rate, 2000 rpm/NA, BSFC ~250 g/kWh 122 5.10 Discussion of Results 5.10.1 Compression and Engine Health The issues of engine build quality and operational health bear significance on interpretation of test results; in order to draw fair comparison between performance of the three chambers examined, it must be satisfied that the experimental results were obtained from an apparatus in which the remaining power cylinder operational characteristics were alike within reason. Peak cylinder pressure under part-throttle motoring conditions observed daily at the beginning and end of a test session give confirmation both that the compression pressure was equivalent among the three chambers, and that no significant change in compression pressure was observed over the course of testing any chamber. The equivalence of compression pressure among the three chambers is important supporting evidence that the geometric compression ratio targeted for each chamber was equivalent, which is vital if valid performance comparisons are to be drawn between the three chambers. It is noted that the compression pressure was slightly higher for the BIP chamber for the first three observations. Because this chamber was the first to be tested following the initial configuration of the engine for this experimental program, and because the initial engine build made use of a new cylinder liner, this elevated compression pressure can conceivably be attributed to the smoothing of small-scale surface roughness on the liner finish. Although at each chamber replacement the liner bore was honed and new piston rings were installed, followed by a run-in period prior to data collection, it is probable that the initial surface machining of the liner by the piston rings was more pronounced than at subsequent break-ins. 123 The difference in average compression pressure between the three chambers was no greater than the variability from one observation to another with any given chamber. That is to say, the range of compression pressure values observed at any instance with one chamber is greater than the range of average compression pressures among the three chambers, supporting the equivalence of compression ratios. The part-throttle BMEP observations for each chamber at the beginning and end of a test session indicate that there was consistent engine performance from day to day, and eliminate engine deterioration as a factor in influencing performance. The fact that average BMEP at this part-throttle condition for the three chambers differs is not troublesome; engine performance can be expected to differ with a change of combustion chamber. At any rate, the variation from one observation to another with a given chamber again is as large as the difference from one chamber to another. 5.10.2 Brake Specific Fuel Consumption The experimental data indicated at first glance that there were differences in BSFC between the three chambers at various operating conditions. This result was striking in the NOx ? efficiency trade-offs presented in section 5.3. However, interpreted in the context of the uncertainty of measurements as propagated through data processing calculations to the results, the observed BSFC differences were determined to be small. Differences in BSFC observed between the three chambers lay within the experimental uncertainty on the BSFC value for any given chamber. Because of the extensive number of data points collected 124 during this investigation, and the lack of test automation, repeat data points were not obtainable. Had such repeats been made, techniques of multivariate analysis of variance could have been utilized, making possible interpretation of the statistical significance of observed differences in the mean value of BSFC at a given engine speed, fueling rate, air-fuel ratio and ignition timing. For lack of a statistically based technique, the experimental uncertainty analysis is the best method available for interpretation of the observed differences in BSFC. Experimental uncertainty could be reduced primarily by means of improving the instrument used to measure fuel mass flow. The manufacturer of the thermal mass flow meter provides accuracy specifications as a fraction of the full scale measurement capability, which is at least twice the range used for measurements in this investigation. A more appropriately sized thermal mass flow meter, or the adoption of an intrinsically more accurate instrument such as a coriolis mass flow meter would reduce experimental uncertainty in this respect. When BSFC was presented in response to air-fuel ratio, data from the three chambers was comparable within the experimental uncertainty for all points except for at the lean limit at the advanced ignition timing. At this point, the BIP chamber exhibited lower BSFC than either of the squish jet chambers, and the result was corroborated by the corresponding combustion stability data. This result is also supported by analysis of the data at various ignition timing angles at the lean limit of operation, where operation with lowest BSFC was made possible by the BIP chamber. At each of the three conditions where lean limit performance was probed, the ignition timing angles were comparable for the three chambers, and the BIP chamber in all cases exhibited markedly lower BSFC. 125 5.10.3 Brake Specific Exhaust Emissions As evidenced by the NOx ? efficiency trade-off curves, and supported by the BSNOx response to air-fuel ratio, it is difficult to draw conclusions about any advantage of one chamber over the others with respect to NOx emission. Although the experimental uncertainty for BSNOx was below 5% for all values of BSNOx above 1 g/kWh, when experimental uncertainty on BSFC or ? is considered, the NOx responses could conceivably collapse onto one another. This was the case for all NOx responses considered except for that at the 1500 rpm/SC condition, where BSNOx in response to ? was decidedly lower for the SJA chamber. Those data however must be interpreted with the COV of GIMEP response of the SJA chamber at that condition in mind, and the explanation offered in section 5.5. Results for hydrocarbon emissions, represented by proxy as CH4 in this work, portray a definitive story for comparison between the three chambers. At every operating condition and fuel mass flow rate rich of the lean limit, the SJB chamber exhibited the lowest BSCH4 emission level. Conversely, the SJA chamber exhibited the highest levels of BSCH4 emission. Of the two squish jet chambers, SJA features the deeper, straight-walled bowl. This higher methane emissions with the deeper bowl can be explained either by quenching of the flame on potentially cooler surfaces, or by inability of the flame to propagate into more quiescent mixture in the time available for combustion. Heat release analysis for the three chambers indicated that in order to achieve a given level of thermal efficiency, the SJA chamber required a significantly earlier heat release profile, which further supports the observation from exhaust emission data that 126 significant amounts of fuel were failing to be consumed in the combustion reaction. In contrast, the heat release profiles for the BIP and SJB chambers at a given level of thermal efficiency showed substantial similarity. The consequence of the earlier heat release required of the SJA chamber was an increased rate of pressure rise in the cylinder and increased peak pressure, with associated higher NOx emission. Experimental uncertainty for BSCH4 results was 3% or less for all data points evaluated, while reductions in BSCH4 with the SJB chamber over the BIP chamber were in some instances an order of magnitude higher than the BSCH4 uncertainty value, notwithstanding the uncertainty on ? or BSFC. The evidence in the form of BSCH4 emission and heat release rate would indicate that the SJA chamber might in fact result in a less desirable NOx ? efficiency trade-off than either the BIP or SJB chambers. The lower methane emission of the SJB chamber compared with the BIP chamber is more difficult to explain in light of their seemingly equivalent thermal efficiency and heat release. Certainly it can be concluded that the mechanism of hydrocarbon emission reduction is not oxidation in the exhaust, as exhaust temperatures are very close between the BIP and SJB chambers for any given level of brake thermal efficiency. Therefore it is supposed that some in-cylinder process be responsible for this phenomenon. It is conceivable that the SJB chamber provided more complete flame propagation by means of increased turbulence and compact chamber design, but that this was not reflected in the brake thermal efficiency because of elevated negative heat transfer due to the more protrusive geometry of the SJB chamber compared to the BIP chamber. Neither would heat release analysis reveal any insight into this possibility because heat transfer to the combustion chamber is not considered in the heat release model used here. 127 5.10.4 Lean Limit Operation Extension of the lean operating limit was not observed by means of operating with either squish jet chamber. The maximum air-fuel ratio for all three chambers was very similar, as was the range of operable ignition timings at the lean limit. In all cases, ignition timing was limited on the advanced and retarded end by combustion stability. In actuality, the absolute air-fuel ratio and ignition timing at which the engine operates are immaterial; the concern is primarily whether NOx emission can be reduced while maintaining BSFC, or dually, whether BSFC can be reduced at a given NOx emission level. At the lean limit, all three chambers showed similar BSNOx ? BSFC trade-off. However the previously discussed reductions in methane emissions were also observed with the SJB chamber under lean limit operation, particularly at 1500 rpm. Under supercharged inlet conditions, a notable reduction in the maximum operable lean air-fuel ratio was observed for all three chambers compared with naturally aspirated inlet conditions. The increased in-cylinder turbulence generated during the intake process due to increased shear associated with higher mass flow during the intake process, an effect studied by de Alexandria Cruz et al[55], is possibly responsible for the increased liability for flame extinguishment at lean air-fuel ratios[34, 35]. An additional exacerbating factor for contraction of the lean limit under supercharged conditions was likely the difficulty with maintaining stable air-fuel ratio with periodic variations in inlet air pressure, as described in section 5.1. 128 5.10.5 In-cylinder Analysis For the analyses made of heat release data at the various operating conditions and fuel mass flow rates, the squish jet chambers exhibited increased ignition delay period compared with the BIP chamber, while the main combustion duration was largely unaffected by the chamber design. All three chambers exhibited a trend of increased ignition delay period with advancing ignition timing. This effect is either due to lower laminar burning speed at the lower cylinder pressure, or due to in-cylinder flow field conditions less favourable for flame development encountered earlier in the compression stroke. Without in-cylinder mean velocity or turbulence data for the considered engine configurations under operating conditions, assignment of the cause is not possible. Concomitant with the increased ignition delay period exhibited with the squish jet chambers is a bias toward more advanced ignition timing. MBT ignition timing is largely dependent on the mean centroid of heat release, and given similar heat release profiles, longer ignition delay requires more advanced ignition timing in order to preserve the optimal schedule of heat release with respect to crank angle. It is theorized that increased turbulence intensity, or locally increased bulk charge velocity over the squish parapet on the piston face in the vicinity of -20 degCA ATDC resulted in difficulty with early flame development. In order to achieve acceptable combustion, the squish jet chambers required ignition to take place prior to the development of the high in-cylinder bulk velocity and turbulence intensity. This explains the advanced MBT timing requirement of the squish jet chambers, and also offers insight into the reduced BSCH4 emission characteristic of the SJB chamber. At a given level of brake thermal efficiency, ignition took place earlier with the SJB chamber than with 129 the BIP chamber. The extended ignition delay period of the SJB chamber resulted in the main combustion duration beginning at a similar crank angle to that of the BIP chamber. The increased time with the SJB chamber for that phase of the combustion process resulted in a larger fraction of the fuel being consumed during the ignition delay period, though heat release calculated from cylinder pressure rise was equivalent. During the main combustion phase, heat release with the SJB chamber took place ever so slightly earlier and more quickly than with the BIP chamber due to the increased turbulence intensity produced with the squish jet design. Lower cylinder out methane emissions resulted, though an associated increase in thermal efficiency with the SJB chamber was not realized. The failure to observe higher thermal efficiency with the SJB chamber is due to the earlier onset and therefore prolongation of combustion, to increased in-cylinder heat transfer during combustion owing to the geometry of the squish jet chambers, or to a combination of both. Similar improvement of methane emission was not observed with the SJA chamber due to the geometry of the piston bowl, as mentioned previously. In addition, due to the less complete combustion experienced with the SJA chamber, the ignition advance requirement was further exacerbated because the main combustion phase was required to take place earlier than with the SJB or BIP chambers in order to exhibit similar thermal efficiency. The result is that the lowest thermal efficiency levels were observed with the SJA chamber. Though the ignition delay period is extended with the squish jet chambers, and the SJA chamber required earlier heat release to compete with the other two on the basis of thermal efficiency, the combustion duration observed with the three chambers was very comparable. This suggests that the squish jet chambers did 130 not result in significantly increased burning speed, notwithstanding the possibility mentioned previously of being unable to detect a mild occurrence of the phenomenon due to the competing effect of increased heat transfer from the cylinder. The advance in MBT timing observed with the squish jet chambers is at odds with results reported by Tippett[43], who performed tests with variable ignition timings. Blaszcyk[47] also reported retarded MBT ignition timing with the use of squish jet pistons, as did Goetz[45] after whose piston crown geometries the current chambers were designed. No reasonable explanation for the disparity can be offered. It should be noted however that Mawle[42] in his firing tests reported earlier transition to the rapid main combustion phase with squish jet pistons, and found more advanced ignition timing appropriate in conjunction therewith. 5.10.6 Limit Space The limit spaces for the combustion chambers presented in section 5.8 portray a range of ignition timing and air-fuel ratio over which engine operation is possible given a set of operating constraints. In general, the SJA chamber offered the smallest limit space, while the spaces provided by the BIP and SJB chambers were comparable in area. That the squish jet chambers operated with longer ignition delay and more advanced MBT ignition timing is supported by their advanced NOx limits on the limit diagrams. For all three engine speeds, the NOx limits for the squish jet chambers were comparable to one another, and lay roughly 5 to 8 degCA ahead of that for the BIP chamber. This advance in NOx limited ignition timing compares well with the increase in ignition delay period observed with the squish jet chambers. 131 Chapter 6 ? Conclusions and Recommendations 6.1 Conclusions In this work, a performance and emissions comparison was made between three combustion chamber designs operating in a homogeneous charge spark-ignition (SI) engine fueled by natural gas. One combustion chamber was a conventional bowl-in-piston (BIP) type chamber, while the other two were squish jet chambers, the piston crown geometry of which were identical except for the piston bowl. The BIP piston was modeled from a Caterpillar G3406 industrial gas engine, and the squish jet chambers were modeled from an open-channel design proposed by Goetz[45]. The pistons were installed in a single-cylinder engine coupled to a dynamometer embedded in a test cell with a complement of instrumentation, and the capability to furnish the engine with supercharged combustion air. Testing of each piston under naturally aspirated inlet conditions consisted of operating the engine at three engine speeds over the entire range of air-fuel ratio and ignition timing, as determined by various operational limits specific to the chamber at hand. Under supercharged inlet conditions, a structured test matrix was used and the same points were repeated for the three pistons at two engine speeds due to difficulty maintaining stable air flow with compressor load cycling. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of the modified in-cylinder flow field due to squish jet piston geometry on engine performance over the entire engine operating map. This technique gives rise to the concept of a 132 limit space for a combustion chamber, which is dependent on engine operating parameters including engine speed and boundary conditions, as well as on the arbitrary limits imposed thereon. The experimental foundation laid by previous investigators indicated that squish jet piston design had the potential to increase the intensity of turbulence generated during the compression stroke of the engine cycle. In particular, velocimetry measurements revealed an increase in turbulence intensity with crown geometry substantially similar to that of the pistons used in this investigation. Due to the absence of in-cylinder velocimetry with the chambers considered in this work, results observed here are interpreted solely by extension from previous investigations. The trade-off between NOx emission and brake thermal efficiency was examined for the five engine speed/inlet pressure conditions, and scant differences were observed between the three chambers based on the comparison of these two parameters alone. The experimental uncertainty on the thermal efficiency parameter was larger than the observed differences between chambers. In all cases, the squish jet ?A? (SJA) chamber data indicated the worst efficiency, but because of the character of the brake specific NOx (BSNOx) response with varying brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC), it cannot be concluded that the observed trade-offs between the three chambers were significantly different. The large data collection scope of this work precluded the collection of multiple repeat data points, and therewith any statistical analysis of the observed differences in BSFC. Likewise, due to the slope of the BSNOx response with varying air-fuel ratio, analogous difficulties were encountered in differentiating between the performance of the three chambers; the experimental uncertainty on air-fuel ratio was larger than the difference between the response curves, and statistical 133 methods could not be applied. Conclusions regarding NOx emission at specific levels of BSFC or relative air-fuel ratio (?) are tenuous without additional insight. That being said, combustion heat release analysis of the three chambers at chosen operating points, as well as unburned hydrocarbon emission data, do provide evidence to support the assertion that the SJA chamber was the inferior of the three in terms of thermal efficiency, as will be summarized shortly. On the other hand, differences in brake specific methane (BSCH4) emission between the three chambers were observed that were significant given the experimental uncertainty on either BSFC or air-fuel ratio. For all the comparisons made on the basis of varying air-fuel ratio or ignition timing, the squish jet ?B? (SJB) chamber exhibited the lowest BSCH4 emission values. On the other hand, the SJA chamber resulted in operation with the highest BSCH4 emissions levels. Experimental uncertainty on BSCH4 was low, and the nature of its response with varying ? or BSFC was such that experimental uncertainty in the varying independent variables did not obscure apparent differences in the emission level. The higher BSCH4 emission with the SJA chamber is attributed to difficulties in achieving complete flame propagation into the deeper piston bowl of the SJA chamber, due to quenching effects or to quiescent mixture in the depths of the bowl. The observed differences in BSCH4 emission between the three chambers apply as well to operation under supercharged conditions. Of the three chambers, the BIP design provided the shortest ignition delay period. The main combustion duration defined by the crank angles between 5% and 95% cumulative heat release was largely similar for all three chambers tested. Taken together, these results explain why the squish jet chambers required 134 substantially more ignition advance in order to produce a similarly favourable heat release schedule for the operating condition under consideration. The limit space analysis of the three chambers showed that for the three engine speeds considered, two features in the comparison stand out. First, the size of the SJA limit space was reduced compared with the BIP and SJB chambers. Second, the squish jet chambers exhibited a shift toward advanced ignition timing compared with the BIP chamber. The advanced limit of the limit space is determined by BSNOx emission, but corroborates the results from cylinder pressure data analysis. The advanced limits for the SJA and SJB chambers were similar, and the reduction in limit space with the SJA chamber is encountered primarily at lean air fuel ratios and retarded ignition timings. No extension of the lean operating limit was observed by means of operation with either squish jet chamber. The highest thermal efficiency operation at the lean limit was observed with the BIP chamber, with associated BSCH4 emissions equivalent to the SJB chamber. The higher thermal efficiency of the BIP chamber at the lean limit was due to the sensitivity of lean combustion to flame extinction under elevated shear rates associated with increased bulk charge motion and turbulence. Under supercharged operating conditions, results between the three chambers were again similar, but the maximum operable air-fuel ratio was reduced, a result which is not surprising given the increase in in-cylinder turbulence associated with cylinder filling under supercharged inlet conditions. No major change in performance was observed when operation under supercharged inlet conditions was compared to that under naturally aspirated inlet conditions; the characteristics of the three chambers with respect to 135 efficiency and emissions remained the same. The most significant difference was that under supercharged inlet conditions, the maximum operable air-fuel ratio was reduced. The consequence is that the ability to operate at extremely low BSNOx emission levels may be compromised when operating at high brake mean effective pressure. The results presented in this experimental work indicate that the effects of modifying combustion chamber geometry on engine performance and emissions are manifold and complex. It does not suffice to make broad geometric chamber modifications in order to examine minute effects that supposedly arise from a fundamental alteration of the in-cylinder flow field. Although the compression height and geometric compression ratio of the three chambers compared here were identical, additional complementary phenomena can be proposed that could affect combustion besides turbulence modification through jet squish motion. Two examples discussed were local and temporal bulk charge motion effects in the vicinity of the spark plug near the time of ignition, and heat transfer disparity due to changes in combustion chamber surface area. In addition, the two squish jet designs were identical except for the geometry of the piston bowl, but the observed engine performance between those two squish jet chamber designs was markedly different, which was not anticipated. This demonstrates that additional geometric chamber parameters need to be considered when designing squish jet chambers for investigation of jet squish motion on engine combustion. Incorporation of jet squish motion into chamber design needs to be taken as part of a unified combustion chamber design philosophy, complicating efforts to modify existing combustion chambers to feature this type of charge motion. 136 6.2 Recommendations In order to improve the experimental data collected in this and in future work, several recommendations can be made with respect to the experimental facility as well as experimental methodology. The engine test cell does not feature automation of operation or test functions. In the ideal case, the test environment should feature programming functionality whereby once described, the test can be performed without human supervision. In its current state, all operation and test procedures are performed manually and with intense human interaction. Engine throttle, combustion air inlet pressure, fuel mass flow, and ignition timing must be set using a combination of analog modules, a mechanical regulator and digital input to a PC. No one input can be made dependent on another for any purpose. In addition, closed-loop air-fuel ratio control functionality would serve well to facilitate recreation of engine operating conditions. At present, fuel mass flow features closed-loop control, and therefore the addition of closed-loop control to combustion air mass flow would accomplish lambda closed-loop control functionality. Closed-loop combustion air mass flow control would also mitigate the impact of air compressor cycling when operating the engine under supercharged conditions, as described in chapter 5. An air handling unit would benefit the test cell combustion air system. Currently, combustion air is drawn either directly from the interior of the test cell for natural aspiration, or from the outlet of the compressor dryer for supercharged 137 operation. As such, dry air at an unspecified temperature is supplied from the compressor, and combustion air of unspecified temperature and humidity is drawn from the test cell for natural aspiration. An air handling system capable of heating and cooling combustion air, as well as completely drying and partially rehumidifying it would be beneficial for consistent measurement of engine performance, as well as exhaust emissions, the formation of some of which species depends heavily on combustion air properties. This work benefited from the good fortune of having the data collection take place during the summer season with high ambient pressure and relatively constant daily temperatures and ambient humidity over the course of several weeks. For this work, a fuel sample was taken at an off-site location and subjected to compositional analysis by gas chromatography. One such sample was used, along with data from previous samples showing low variation in sample composition over a certain period of time. Ideally however, the engine test facility should feature capability for fuel compositional analysis, especially when using gaseous fuel supplied from the mains. Sample composition should be recorded at least daily when tests are performed, and ideally several times per day. Perhaps the most significant recommendation with respect to this work is that to use statistical techniques to compare data points from different chambers. The goal of this work was to collect sufficient data to generate engine operating maps or limit spaces with each of the three chambers, which required many hundreds of data points to be collected. As it were, the only estimate of experimental uncertainty was dervied from measurement accuracy as propagated through the calculations to the parameters of interest. As such, it was not possible to 138 conclude with any concrete certainty that results from one chamber were different to those from another when only scant differences were observed. By means of multivariate analysis of variance and hypothesis testing, powerful insight into the experimental results could be gleaned, but only if multiple repeat data points were collected for each of the data points in this work. This recommendation then ties into the first, where test automation would allow the repetition of a single test session over a number of days without requiring the operator to be intensely focused on achieving the required engine operating conditions. With some prior knowledge of the variance of the parameters of interest, the required number of data repetitions would be determined, and hypothesis testing would be feasible. 139 Bibliography 1. Ricardo, Sir Harry S., Hempson, J. G. G., The High-Speed Internal Combustion Engine, 5th ed. London: Blackie & Sons Ltd., 1968 2. United States Department of Energy ? Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2009 DOE/EIA-0384 (2009). Washington: DOE/EIA, 2010 3. United States Congress, Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act 1974. 4. United States Government, Title 40 CFR Part 86 Subpart A. 5. European Economic Community, 1970 Directive 70/220/EEC. 6. United States Government, Title 40 CFR Part 1039. 7. United States Government, Title 40 CFR Part 1051. 8. United States Government, Title 40 CFR Part 1054. 9. United States Congress, Energy Independence and Security Act 2007. 10. European Commission, ACEA Agreement 2007. 11. United States Environmental Protection Agency, US Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report 430-R-10-006. Washington: EPA, 2010 12. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions Certificate WFS-ONHWY-10-01 13. Automotive Handbook, 6th ed., Robert Bosch GmbH, Plochingen, Germany, 2004. 14. Internal Combustion Engine Squish Jet Combustion Chamber, by R. L. Evans. (1986, February 25). US Patent 4572123. 140 15. Squish Jet Combustion Chamber, by R. L. Evans. (1991, November 19). US Patent 5065715. 16. Squish Jet Combustion Chamber, by R. L. Evans. (1992, April 14). US Patent 5103784. 17. Chan, E. C., ?Spark Ignition of Partially Stratified Gaseous Fuel Air Mixtures,? Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Mech. Eng., UBC, Vancouver, BC, 2010. 18. Heywood, J. B., Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988. 19. Reynolds, T. W., Gerstein, M., ?Influence of Molecular Structure of Hydrocarbons on Rate of Flame Propagation,? Third Symp. (Intl.) on Combustion, 1949, pp. 190-194. 20. Warnatz, J., 24th Symp. (Intl.) on Combustion, 1993, p. 553. 21. Edson, M. H., Taylor, C. F., ?The Limits of Engine Performance ? Comparison of Actual and Theoretical Cycles,? Digital Calculations of Engine Cycles, SAE Prog. in Technology, 1964, vol. 7, pp. 49-64. 22. Bowman, C. T., ?Kinetics of Pollutant Formation and Destruction in Combustion,? Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 1975, vol. 1, pp. 33-45. 23. Lavoie, G. A., Heywood, J. B., Keck, J. C., ?Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Nitric Oxide Formation in Internal Combustion Engines,? Combust. Sci. Technol., 1970, vol. 1, pp. 313-326. 24. Kuo, K. K., Principles of Combustion, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2005. 25. Damk?hler, G., ?Der Einfluss der Turbulenz auf die Flammengeschwindigkeit in Gasgemischen,? Jahrbuch 1939 der deutschen Luftfahrtforschung, vol. II, pp. 3-21. 26. Peters, N., Turbulent Combustion. Cambridge: University Press, 2000. 141 27. Abraham, J., Williams, F. A., Braco, F. V., ?A Discussion of Turbulent Flame Structure in Premixed Charges,? SAE Paper 850345, Engine Combustion Analysis: New Approaches, P-156, 1985. 28. Heywood, J. B., Vilchis, F. R., ?Comparison of Flame Development in a Spark-Ignition Engine Fueled with Propane and Hydrogen,? Combust. Sci. Technol., 1984, vol. 38, pp. 313-324. 29. Groff, E. G., Matekunas, F. A., ?The Nature of Turbulent Flame Propagation in a Homogeneous Spark-Ignited Engine,? SAE Paper 800133, SAE Trans., 1980, vol. 89. 30. Bates, S. C., ?Flame Imaging Studies of Combustion Completion in a SI Four-Stroke Engine,? Combust. Sci. Technol., 1995, vol. 105, pp. 1-18. 31. Bradley, D., Haq, M. Z., Hicks, R. A., Kitagawa, T., Lawes, M., Sheppard, C. G. W., Wooley, R., ?Turbulent Burning Velocity, Burned Gas Distribution, and Associated Flame Surface Definition,? Combustion and Flame, 2003, vol. 133, issue 4, pp. 415-430. 32. Law, C. K., Combustion Physics, 4th ed. Cambridge: University Press, 2006. 33. Warnatz, J., Maas, U., Dibble, R., Combustion, 3rd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2001. 34. Abdel-Gayed, R. G., Bradley, D., Hamid, N. M., Lawes, M., ?Lewis Number Effects on Turbulence Burning Velocity,? Symp. (Intl.) on Combustion, 1985, vol. 20, issue 1, pp. 505-512. 35. Bradley, D., ?How Fast Can We Burn,? Symp. (Intl.) on Combustion, 1992, vol. 24, issue 1, pp. 247-262. 36. Semenov, E. S., ?Studies of Turbulent Gas Flow in Piston Engines,? TECH TRANS. F97 NASA, 1963. 142 37. Arcoumanis, C., Whitelaw, J. H., ?Fluid Mechanics of Internal Combustion Engines: A Review,? Proc. Instn. of Mech. Engrs., 1987, vol. 201, pp. 57-74. 38. Clerk, D., ?Cylinder Actions in Gas and Gasoline Engines,? SAE Journal, 1921, vol. 8. 39. Shimamoto, Y., Akiyama, K., ?A Study of Squish in Open Combustion Chambers of a Diesel Engine,? Bull. JSME, 1970, vol. 13, no. 63, pp. 1096-1173. 40. D?hring, K., ?The Relative Effects of Intake and Compression Generated Turbulence on IC Engine Combustion Duration,? M.A.Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Mech. Eng., UBC, Vancouver, BC, 1986. 41. Dymala-Dolesky, R., ?The Effects of Turbulence Enhancement on the Performance of a Spark-Ignition Engine,? M.A.Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Mech. Eng., UBC, Vancouver, BC, 1987. 42. Mawle, C., ?The Effects of Turbulence and Combustion Chamber Geometry on Combustion in a Spark-Ignition Engine,? M.A.Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Mech. Eng., UBC, Vancouver, BC, 1989. 43. Tippett, E. C., ?The Effects of Combustion Chamber Design on Turbulence, Cyclic Variation, and Performance in an SI Engine,? M.A.Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Mech. Eng., UBC, Vancouver, BC, 1989. 44. Nakamura, H., Ohinouye, T., Hori, K., Kiyota, Y., Nakagami, T., Akishino, K., Tsukamoto, Y., ?Development of a New Combustion System (MCA-Jet) in Gasoline Engine,? SAE Paper 780007, SAE Trans., 1978, vol. 87. 143 45. Goetz, W. A., Evans, R. L., Duggal, V. K., ?Fast Burn Combustion Development for Natural Gas Engines,? Windsor Workshop on Alternative Fuels, CONF 930696, 1993, part 6, pp. 577-602. 46. Evans, R. L., Blaszczyk, J., ?Combustion Chamber Design for a Lean-Burn SI Engine,? Proc. Spring Tech. Meeting of Comb. Inst., Canadian Section, 1992, pp. 73-76. 47. Evans, R. L., Blaszczyk, J., ?Fast-Burn Combustion Chamber Development,? UBC Alternative Fuel Laboratory AFL-91-05, 1991. 48. Evans, R. L., Blaszczyk, J., ?Fast-Burn Combustion Chamber Design for Natural Gas Engines,? Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Trans. ASME, 1998, vol. 120, issue 1, pp. 232-236. 49. Evans, R. L., ?Extending the Lean Limit of Natural Gas Engines,? Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Trans. ASME, 2009, vol. 131, issue 3, art. no. 032803. 50. Lappas, P., ?An Experimental and Computational Study of Flow in the Squish Jet Combustion Chamber,? Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Mech. Eng., UBC, Vancouver, BC, 2003. 51. Lappas, P., Evans, R. L., ?Fluid Flow in the Squish-Jet Combustion Chamber,? Proc. IMechE Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 2006, vol. 220, issue A4, pp. 335-378. 52. Lappas, P., Evans, R. L., ?Experimental Validation of and Improved Squish Velocity Model for Bowl-in-Piston Combustion Chambers,? Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Trans. ASME, 2006, vol. 128, issue 2, pp. 403-413. 53. 1989 ASHRAE Handbook, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1989, p. 6.9. 144 54. Test Procedure for the Measurement of Gaseous Exhaust Emissions from Small Utility Engines, Recommended Practice, SAE Standard J1088, 1993. 55. Holman, J. P., Experimental Methods for Engineers, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988. 56. de Tarso de Alexandria Cruz, P., de Souza Vianna, J. N., Moreira, C., ?Study of the Turbulence Intensity Variation within the Combustion Chamber of a SI Engine due to Turbocharging,? SAE Paper 2003-01-6387, 12? Congresso e Exposi??o Internacionais de Tecnologia da Mobilidade, 2003. 145 Appendix A ? Data Processing Routines A.1 Low-Speed Data Processing Routine %Routine to process low-speed data acquired from Ricardo Hydra %in test cell 103 at UBC CERC %Eric Kastanis %Dept. of Mechanical Engineering %University of British Columbia %09/20/2009 tic open('~/Documents/School/Current Research Work/Low Speed Data Processing/Fuel_Composition_Example.mat') Fuel_Composition=ans.Fuel_Composition; clear ans; filename='100809_unit15'; data=csvread(filename, 2, 0); variable_names={ 'Sample_Time' 'Point' 'Engine_Speed' 'Brake_Torque' 'Throttle_Position' 'Spark_Timing' 'Exhaust_Lambda' 'LFE_Delta_Pressure' 'Intake_Manifold_Pressure' 'Intake_Manifold_Temperature' 'Intake_Manifold_Fuel_Flow' 'Inlet_Air_Pressure' 'Premixing_Chamber_Temperature' 'PSC_Fuel_Flow' 'PSC_Fuel_Pressure' 'unused' 'PSC_Injection_Timing' 'PSC_Pulse_Width' 'Exhaust_CO2' 'Exhaust_NOx' 'Exhaust_O2' 'Exhaust_CH4' 'Exhaust_CO' 'Exhaust_THC' 'Exhaust_Manifold_Pressure' 'Exhaust_Manifold_Temperature' 'Oil_Temperature' 'Oil_Pressure' 'Test_Cell_Temperature' 146 'Coolant_Outlet_Temperature' 'Ambient_Pressure' 'Inlet_Air_Temperature' 'Ambient_RH' 'DI_Fuel_Flow' 'Intake_CO2' 'DI_Timing' 'DI_Pulse_Width' }; variable_units = { 's' '-' 'rpm' 'Nm' '%' 'degCA_BTDC' '-' 'inH2O' 'bar' 'degC' 'kg/hr' 'bar' 'degC' 'kg/hr' 'barg' '-' 'degCA_BTDC' 'degCA' '%_dry' 'ppm_dry' '%_dry' 'ppm_dry' 'ppm_dry' 'ppm_wet' 'bar' 'degC' 'degC' 'barg' 'degC' 'degC' 'bar' 'degC' '%' 'kg/hr' '%_dry' 'degCA_BTDC' 'degCA' }; 147 for i=1:size(variable_names,1) eval([char(variable_names(i)) '=data(1:end,i);']); end for i=1:(max(Point)-min(Point)+1) index=find(Point==(min(Point)+i-1)); for j=1:size(variable_names,1) eval([char(variable_names(j)) 'zSD(i,1)=std(' char(variable_names(j)) '(index));']) eval([char(variable_names(j)) 'zMEAN(i,1)=mean(' char(variable_names(j)) '(index));']) end end for i=1:size(variable_names,1) eval([char(variable_names(i)) '=' char(variable_names(i)) 'zMEAN;']); end clear *zMEAN data i j index unused* toc %global constants global constants constants = { 'Rbar' 8314 %universal gas constant [J/kg-K] 'R_air' 287 %air specific gas constant [J/kg-K] 'M_w' 18.02 %molecular mass of water [kg/kmol] 'vol_disp' 450 %engine displacement [cm^3] }; %viscosity temperature correction mu_std = 181.87; %micropoise mu_flow_dry = dry_visc_func(Inlet_Air_Temperature); visc_corr_dry = mu_std./mu_flow_dry; %viscosity humidity correction wet_dry=1; visc_corr_wet = visc_corr_dry.*wet_dry; clear mu_std wet_dry visc_corr_dry %call function for actual volumetric flow rate air_volume_flow = volume_air_flow_func(LFE_Delta_Pressure, visc_corr_wet); %partial pressure [kPa] of water in inlet air [p_sat_H2O p_H2O] = partial_press_water_func(Ambient_RH, Inlet_Air_Temperature); 148 % air_mass_flow_wet = wet_density.*air_volume_flow; [specific_humidity density] = ... humidity_func(Inlet_Air_Pressure, Inlet_Air_Temperature, p_H2O); [air_mass_flow_wet air_mass_flow_dry] = ... air_mass_flow_func(air_volume_flow, density, specific_humidity); %calculate volumetric efficiency [-] voleff = voleff_func(air_volume_flow, Engine_Speed); %calculate BMEP [bar] bmep = bmep_func(Brake_Torque); %brake power [kW] brake_power=power_func(Brake_Torque, Engine_Speed); %calculate total fuel flow [kg/hr] fuel_flow = fuel_flow_func(Intake_Manifold_Fuel_Flow, 0, 0); %calculate fuel properties fuel_properties = fuel_func(Fuel_Composition); %dry lambda lambda = lambda_func(air_mass_flow_dry, fuel_flow, fuel_properties{8,2}); %BSFC & Brake Thermal Efficiency [bsfc bte] = efficiency_func(brake_power, fuel_flow, fuel_properties{4,2}); %SAE J1088 emissions mass flows [thc, ch4, co, co2, nox, o2, h2, h2o, carbon_balance] = ... saej1088_ch4_func(Exhaust_THC, Exhaust_CH4, Exhaust_CO, Exhaust_CO2, ... Exhaust_NOx, Exhaust_O2, fuel_properties, ... air_mass_flow_dry, fuel_flow, specific_humidity); toc; 149 %Compute dry air viscosity in micropoise as a function of temperature %in degC function viscosity=dry_visc_func(temperature) viscosity=14.58*((temperature+273.15).^(3/2))... ./(110.4+temperature+273.15); %Compute actual volume air flow [m^3/hr] as a function of Meriam LFE %delta pressure and viscosity correction factor function air_volume_flow=volume_air_flow_func(lfe_delta_pressure, visc_corr) %LFE constants B=2.97218; C=-2.13154e-2; air_volume_flow=B*lfe_delta_pressure+C*lfe_delta_pressure.^2 ... .*visc_corr; %[acfm] air_volume_flow=air_volume_flow*60*0.0283168; %[m^3/hr] %Compute partial pressure [kPa] of water in air from inlet air %temperature [degC] and relative humidity [%] function [p_sat_H2O p_H2O] = ... partial_press_water_func(ambient_rh, inlet_air_temperature) %compute partial pressure of water [kPa] at given temperature and RH %1989 ASHRAE handbook, Ch6, pg6.9, table situation 3 p_sat_H2O=(exp(-5800.2206./(inlet_air_temperature+273.15)... +1.3914993-0.048640239*(inlet_air_temperature+273.15)+ ... 0.000041764768*(inlet_air_temperature+273.15).^2 ... -0.000000014452093*(inlet_air_temperature+273.15).^3 ... +6.5459673*log(inlet_air_temperature+273.15)))/1000; p_H2O=ambient_rh/100.*p_sat_H2O; 150 %Compute air specific humidity, wet and dry densities of air %pressure in bar abs, temperature in degC, ambient humidity in % function [specific_humidity density]=... humidity_func(inlet_air_pressure, inlet_air_temperature, p_H2O) global constants Rbar=constants{1,2}; R_air=constants{2,2}; M_w=constants{3,2}; %dry air partial pressure [kPa] p_dryair=inlet_air_pressure*100-p_H2O; %compute specific humidity [g/kg dry air] specific_humidity=0.62198*1000*p_H2O./(p_dryair); %compute air densities [kg/m^3] density=1000*(p_dryair/R_air + p_H2O*M_w/Rbar)./(inlet_air_temperature+273.15); %Compute wet (total) and dry air mass flow [kg/h] %Input air volume flow [m^3/h], density [kg/m^3] %and specific humidity [g/kg dry air] function [air_mass_flow_wet air_mass_flow_dry] = ... air_mass_flow_func(air_volume_flow, density, specific_humidity) air_mass_flow_wet=density.*air_volume_flow; air_mass_flow_dry=(1./(1+specific_humidity/1000)).*air_mass_flow_wet; %Compute volumetric efficiency from air volume flow [m^3/hr], %engine speed [rpm], and volumetric displacement [cm^3] function voleff=voleff_func(air_volume_flow, engine_speed) global constants vol_disp=constants{4,2}; voleff=2*air_volume_flow/3600./(vol_disp/1e6)./(engine_speed/60); %Compute BMEP [bar] from brake torque [Nm] and volumetric displacement [cc] function bmep=bmep_func(torque) global constants vol_disp=constants{4,2}; bmep=4*pi()*torque./(vol_disp/1e6)/1e5; 151 %Compute power [kW] from torque [Nm] and engine speed [rpm] function power=power_func(torque, engine_speed) power=2*pi()*engine_speed/60.*torque/1000; %Compute fuel flow [kg/hr] from DI fuel flow, PSC fuel flow, intake %manifold fuel flow [all kg/hr] function fuel_flow=fuel_flow_func(intake, PSC, DI) fuel_flow=intake+PSC+DI; %Calculate stoichiometric air-fuel ratio and fuel LHV from fuel composition %Input fuel composition in array of mole fractions in the following order: % Methane (CH4) % Ethane (C2H6) % Propane (C3H8) % i-Butane (C4H10) % n-Butane (C4H10) % i-Pentane (C5H12) % n-Pentane (C5H12) % neo-Pentane % Hexane (C6H14) % Heptane (C7H16) % Octane (C8H18) % Carbon Dioxide (CO2) % Nitrogen (N2) function [fuel_properties] ... = fuel_func(fuel_composition) %check that fuel composition adds to unity if abs(1-sum(fuel_composition))>0.001 disp('Fuel component mole fractions do not add to 1') disp('Hit any key to exit') pause return; end %air molar NO ratio W=.7905/.2095; %molecular masses of elements [kg/kmol] M_element=[ 12.011 %carbon 1.00794 %hydrogen 15.9994 %oxygen 14.00674 %nitrogen 152 ]; %matrix of elemental composition of fuel components [kmol/kmol] %C H O N comp_element=[ 1 4 0 0 %methane 2 6 0 0 %ethane 3 8 0 0 %propane 4 10 0 0 %i-butane 4 10 0 0 %n-butane 5 12 0 0 %i-pentane 5 12 0 0 %n-pentane 5 12 0 0 %neopentane 6 14 0 0 %hexane 7 16 0 0 %heptane 8 18 0 0 %octane 1 0 2 0 %carbon dioxide 0 0 0 2 %nitrogen ]; %molecular masses of fuel components [kg/kmol] M_components=comp_element*M_element; %molecular mass of fuel M_fuel=fuel_composition'*M_components; %molecular mass of air M_air=2*(M_element(3)+W*M_element(4))/(1+W); %higher & lower heating value of components [kJ/kg] HHV_components=[ 55517 51903 50325 49347 49505 48909 49006 48712 48678 48435 48251 0 0 ]; LHV_components=[ 50030 47511 46333 45560 45719 153 45249 45345 45052 45103 44921 44783 0 0 ]; %fuel higher and lower heating value [kJ/kg] HHV=sum(fuel_composition.*M_components.*HHV_components)/M_fuel; LHV=sum(fuel_composition.*M_components.*LHV_components)/M_fuel; %fuel elemental ratios [kmol/kmol] HC=sum(fuel_composition.*comp_element(:,2))/... sum(fuel_composition.*comp_element(:,1)); OC=sum(fuel_composition.*comp_element(:,3))/... sum(fuel_composition.*comp_element(:,1)); NC=sum(fuel_composition.*comp_element(:,4))/... sum(fuel_composition.*comp_element(:,1)); %fuel elemental composition (Ca Hb Oc Nd) a=fuel_composition'*comp_element(:,1); b=fuel_composition'*comp_element(:,2); c=fuel_composition'*comp_element(:,3); d=fuel_composition'*comp_element(:,4); %stoichiometric air-fuel mole ratio af_stoich_moles=(1+W)*(a+b/4-c/2); %stoichiometric air-fuel mass ratio af_stoich=af_stoich_moles*M_air/M_fuel; fuel_properties={ 'M_fuel', M_fuel 'M_air', M_air 'HHV', HHV 'LHV', LHV 'HC_Ratio', HC 'OC_Ratio', OC 'NC_Ratio', NC 'AF_stoich', af_stoich 'moleC_moleF', a }; 154 %Calculate dry lambda from air mass flow, fuel mass flow and stoichiometric %air-fuel ratio function lambda = lambda_func(air_mass_flow, fuel_flow, af_stoich); lambda=(air_mass_flow./fuel_flow)./af_stoich; %Compute BSFC [g/kWh] and brake thermal efficiency [-] from %brake power [kW], fuel flow [kg/hr] and fuel LHV [kJ/kg] function [sfc te]=efficiency_func(power, fuel_flow, LHV) sfc=fuel_flow*1000./power; te=3600./(sfc.*LHV/1000); %Calculate wet emissions mass flow rates [g/hr] according to SAE J1088 %Also calculate methane emissions using analogous methodology %Input emissions species concentrations are measured dry except for THC %Air and fuel mass flows [kg/hr], specific humidity [g/kg-dry air] %THC wet concentration is passed to the function as C3-basis, but is %internally converted to C1-basis function [thc, ch4, co, co2, nox, o2, h2, h2o, carbon_balance] = ... saej1088_ch4_func(thc_ppm, ch4_ppm, co_ppm, co2_pct, nox_ppm, o2_pct, ... fuel_properties, air_mass_flow, fuel_flow, sp_hum) %scalars from cell array fuel_HC=fuel_properties{5,2}; M_f=fuel_properties{1,2}; mCmF=fuel_properties{9,2}; %molecular masses of elements [kg/kmol] thc_ppm=3*thc_ppm; %convert THC concentration from C3 to C1 basis M_element=[ 12.011 %carbon 1.00794 %hydrogen 15.9994 %oxygen 14.00674 %nitrogen ]; 155 %matrix of elemental composition of exhaust components [kmol/kmol] %C H O N comp_element=[ 1 1.85 0 0 %thc sae j1088 uses gasoline HC ratio here 1 0 1 0 %co 1 0 2 0 %co2 0 0 2 1 %no2 0 0 2 0 %o2 0 2 0 0 %h2 0 2 1 0 %h2o 0 0 0 2 %n2 1 4 0 0 %ch4 ]; M_components=comp_element*M_element; %define scalars for ease of reading M_thc=M_components(1); M_co=M_components(2); M_co2=M_components(3); M_no2=M_components(4); M_o2=M_components(5); M_h2=M_components(6); M_h2o=M_components(7); M_n2=M_components(8); M_ch4=M_components(9); M_f_sae = M_element(1) + fuel_HC*M_element(2); %C1 hydrocarbon basis co_pct=co_ppm/1e6*1e2; h2_pct=0.5*fuel_HC*co_pct.*(co_pct+co2_pct)./(co_pct+3*co2_pct); K=1./(1+0.005*(co_pct+co2_pct)*fuel_HC-0.01*h2_pct); KH=1./(1-0.0329*(sp_hum-10.71)); co_pct_wet=K.*co_pct; co2_pct_wet=K.*co2_pct; nox_ppm_wet=K.*nox_ppm.*KH; o2_pct_wet=K.*o2_pct; h2_pct_wet=K.*h2_pct; thc_ppm_wet=thc_ppm; ch4_ppm_wet=ch4_ppm; M_exh=(M_thc.*thc_ppm_wet/1e4 + M_co.*co_pct_wet + ... M_co2.*co2_pct_wet + M_no2.*nox_ppm_wet/1e4 + ... M_o2.*o2_pct_wet + M_h2.*h2_pct_wet + ... M_h2o.*(1-K) + M_components(8).*(100-thc_ppm_wet/1e4 ? ... co_pct_wet ? co2_pct_wet ? nox_ppm_wet/1e4 ? o2_pct_wet ? ... h2_pct_wet ? 100*(1-K)))/100; exh_mass_flow=air_mass_flow+fuel_flow; thc=exh_mass_flow*1000*M_f_sae./M_exh.*thc_ppm_wet/1e6; 156 co=exh_mass_flow*1000*M_co./M_exh.*co_pct_wet/1e2; co2=exh_mass_flow*1000*M_co2./M_exh.*co2_pct_wet/1e2; nox=exh_mass_flow*1000*M_no2./M_exh.*nox_ppm_wet/1e6; o2=exh_mass_flow*1000*M_o2./M_exh.*o2_pct_wet/1e2; h2=exh_mass_flow*1000*M_h2./M_exh.*h2_pct_wet/1e2; ch4=exh_mass_flow*1000*M_ch4./M_exh.*ch4_ppm_wet/1e6; h2o=exh_mass_flow*1000*M_h2o./M_exh.*(1-K); %carbon balance, out over in carbon_balance = ... (co/M_co+co2/M_co2+thc/M_f_sae)./(fuel_flow*1000*mCmF/M_f); 157 A.2 Cylinder Pressure Data Processing Routine %Script for processing cylinder pressure data from Hydra engine with %PressureClient output files. %Computes various statistics, provides average cylinder pressure, heat %release, etc. %Eric J. Kastanis %Dept. of Mechanical Engineering %University of British Columbia %09/16/2009 tic %initilaize constants vol_cl=48.537; %cc bore=80.26; %mm stroke=88.9; %mm conrod=158.01; %mm comp_height=40.42; %mm IVO=348; %degCA ATDC IVC=-112; %degCA ATDC EVO=112; %degCA ATDC EVC=-348; %degCA ATDC %get list of file names for batch processing %Use such a command on a Windows platform % fileNameList=ls('%%%'); %Use this command with Unix binary temp=dir('100809_unit15_*'); for i=1:47 fileNameList(i,:)=temp(i).name; end clear temp i; %Array of engine speeds for knock processing % Engine_Speed=1500; %initialize output variables, filename row-wise, cycle number column-wise p_max=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); ca_max=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); gimep=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); pmep=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); nimep=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); dp_dtheta_max=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); ca_dp_dtheta_max=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); dq_dtheta_max=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); ca_dq_dtheta_max=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); q_max=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); ca_q5=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); ca_q10=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); ca_q50=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); ca_q95=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); 158 poly_comp=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); poly_exp=NaN(size(fileNameList,1), 100); %initialize output variables, crank angle degree row-wise, filename %column-wise knock_trace=NaN(1440, size(fileNameList,1)); P_avg=NaN(1440, size(fileNameList,1)); P_filt_avg=NaN(1440, size(fileNameList,1)); %reciprocating geometric parameters deg=[-360:0.5:359.5]'; %degCA piston_disp=stroke/2*cosd(deg)+(conrod^2-(stroke/2)^2*sind(deg).^2).^0.5+comp_height; %mm vol=vol_cl+pi()*bore^2/4*(conrod+stroke/2+comp_height-piston_disp)/1000; %cc %loop through processing routine for each file name for i=1:size(fileNameList, 1) %get data data=csvread(fileNameList(i,:),2,0); P=data; [p_max(i,:), ca_max(i,:)] = p_max_func(deg, P); [gimep(i,:), pmep(i,:), nimep(i,:)] = imep_func(vol, P); [knock_trace knock_intensity(i,:)] = knock_proc_func(deg, P, Engine_Speed(i)); P_filt = cyl_press_filter_func(P, 500); [dp_dtheta_max(i,:) ca_dp_dtheta_max(i,:)] = dp_max_func(deg, P_filt); [dq_dtheta q] = heat_release_func(deg, vol, P_filt, IVC); [dq_dtheta_max(i,:), ca_dq_dtheta_max(i,:), q_max(i,:), ca_q5(i,:), ca_q10(i,:), ca_q50(i,:), ca_q95(i,:)] = ... heat_release_func2(deg, dq_dtheta, q); [poly_comp(i,:) poly_exp(i,:)] = polytropic_func(deg, vol, P_filt, IVC, EVO); %average cylinder pressure data P_avg=mean(P,2); P_filt_avg=mean(P_filt,2); % dp_dtheta_avg=mean(dp_dtheta, 2); dq_dtheta_avg=mean(dq_dtheta, 2); q_avg=mean(q, 2); knock_trace_avg=mean(knock_trace, 2); %save raw and ensemble averaged crank angle traces for each filename saveFile=fileNameList(i,:); save(saveFile, 'deg', 'vol', 'P', 'knock_trace', 'P_filt', 'dq_dtheta', 'q', 'P_avg', ... 'P_filt_avg', 'dq_dtheta_avg', 'q_avg', 'knock_trace_avg'); 159 toc end saveFile='Output.mat'; save(saveFile, 'deg', 'p_max', 'ca_max', 'gimep', 'pmep', 'nimep', 'knock_intensity', ... 'dp_dtheta_max', 'ca_dp_dtheta_max', 'dq_dtheta_max', 'ca_dq_dtheta_max', ... 'q_max', 'ca_q5', 'ca_q10', 'ca_q50', 'ca_q95', 'poly_comp', 'poly_exp'); clear toc %Find peak cylinder pressure and corresponding %crank angle for one cycle function [p_max, ca_p_max] = p_max_func(deg, p) [p_max, index]=max(p); ca_p_max=deg(index)'; %Find GIMEP, PMEP, NIMEP for Nc engine cycles function [gimep pmep nimep] = imep_func(vol, p) [Nr Nc]=size(p); %requires data in conventional engine cycle order intake=[1:360]'; compression=[361:720]'; power=[721:1080]'; exhaust=[1081:1440]'; %IMEP is computed using trapezoid method for integration dvol=repmat([0; diff(vol)], [1 Nc]); p_avg=(p+[zeros(1, Nc); p(1:end-1,:)])/2; gimep=sum(p_avg([compression; power],:).*dvol([compression; power],:))/(max(vol)-min(vol)); pmep=sum(p_avg([intake; exhaust],:).*dvol([intake; exhaust],:))/(max(vol)-min(vol)); nimep=sum(p_avg.*dvol)/(max(vol)-min(vol)); 160 %Function to process knock parameters from cylinder pressure data %Inputs are a scalar Engine Speed and a (N x 2) array of crank angle %and cylinder pressure for a single cycle. %Outputs are knock intensity (peak to peak), and filtered pressure signal. %The pressure units you input are the same as are output. %Operates on data sets with column-wise pressure data points and row-wise %cycles. %Configured for a single-cylinder four-stroke engine, with no plans to %accommodate anything else for now. function [ptrace_filt, knock_intensity] = knock_proc_func(deg, p, engine_speed) CAres=0.5; %number of crank angle degrees per sample knockwinLL=-30; %knock window lower limit (degCA ATDC) knockwinUL=90; %knock window upper limit knockfreqLL=2500; %knock frequency lower limit (Hz) knockfreqUL=8000; %knock frequency lower limit (Hz) N=720/CAres; %number of samples per cycle engine_freq=engine_speed/60; sampling_freq=N/2*engine_freq; [Nr Nc]=size(p); if sampling_freq<(2*knockfreqUL) disp('Nyquist frequency is within range of knock frequency band.') disp('Knock frequencies above will not be resolved.') knockfreqUL=sampling_freq/2; end if sampling_freq<(2*knockfreqLL) disp('Engine speed is not high enough.') disp('Knock frequencies cannot be resolved.') return end T=1/sampling_freq; %sample period t=[0:N-1]*T; %time array f=[-N/2:1:N/2-1]/N*sampling_freq; %frequency range P=fft(p,N); %FFT pressure signal Pshift=fftshift(P,1); %shift null frequency to centre %determine filter mask a=find(f>knockfreqLL&f<knockfreqUL); b=find(f<-knockfreqLL&f>-knockfreqUL); window=zeros(length(Pshift),Nc); window(a,:)=1; window(b,:)=1; %mask uninteresting frequencies Pshiftfilt=Pshift.*window; 161 Pfilt=ifftshift(Pshiftfilt,1); pfilt=ifft(Pfilt,N); c=find(deg>=knockwinLL&deg<=knockwinUL); knock_intensity=max(pfilt(c,:))-min(pfilt(c,:)); ptrace_filt=pfilt; %Lowpass filter function for cylinder pressure data for conditioning %prior to computing crank angle pressure derivative and heat release rate. %Can process multiple cylinder pressure traces at once. %Zero-padding and Gaussian parameter computation schemes developed by %Edward C. Chan for use in a similar function function p_filt=cyl_press_filter_func(p, bin_cutoff) padding_factor=10; %zero padding signal length multiple ext_amt=0.15; %data extension factor (to investigate signal edge effects) %crank angle increments along rows, trace number along columns [Nr, Nc]=size(p); %variables for computing FFT and Gaussian window bins=Nr*padding_factor; %zero-padding of data p_pad=zeros(bins, Nc); p_pad(1:Nr,:)=p; %extending data edges if(ext_amt) N_ext=round(ext_amt*Nr); head=p(N_ext:-1:1,:); tail=p(Nr-N_ext+1:Nr,:); p_pad(bins-N_ext+1:bins,:)=head; p_pad(Nr+1:Nr+N_ext,:)=tail; end %perform FFT fft_p_pad=fftshift(fft(p_pad),1); %create filter window alpha=sqrt(2*log(2))*(bins-1)/(2*bin_cutoff); %-3dB attenuation at cutoff window=gausswin(bins, alpha); %apply window fft_p_pad_filt=fft_p_pad.*repmat(window, [1 Nc]); %inverse FFT 162 p_pad_filt=ifft(ifftshift(fft_p_pad_filt,1), 'symmetric'); p_filt=p_pad_filt(1:Nr,:); %Find peak cylinder pressure slope and corresponding %crank angle for one cycle function [dp_dtheta_max, ca_dp_dtheta_max] = dp_max_func(deg, p) [dp_dtheta dtheta]=diff_yx(p, deg); [dp_dtheta_max, index]=max(dp_dtheta); ca_dp_dtheta_max=deg(index)'; %Heat release rate and cumulative heat release for Nc engine cycles %Output in kJ/deg and kJ for pressure input in bar function [dq_dtheta, q] = heat_release_func(deg, v, p, IVC) [Nr Nc]=size(p); v=repmat(v, [1 Nc]); gamma = 1.30; %cylinder pressure and volume derivatives w.r.t. crank angle [dp_dtheta, dtheta] = diff_yx (p, deg); [dv_dtheta, dtheta] = diff_yx (v, deg); %net heat release rate dq_dtheta = gamma/(gamma-1)*p.*dv_dtheta + 1/(gamma-1)*v.*dp_dtheta; dq_dtheta=dq_dtheta/10000; %convert from bar-cm^3/deg to kJ/deg %cumulative net heat release q=cumsum(dq_dtheta.*repmat(0.5, [Nr Nc])); %Peg cumulative heat release to zero at IVC index=find(deg==IVC); peg=repmat(q(index,:), [Nr 1]); q=q-peg; %Max net heat release rate + corresponding crank angle, %integrated net heat release, angles of 5, 10 50, 95% net heat release function [dq_dtheta_max, ca_dq_dtheta_max, q_max, ca_q5, ca_q10, ca_q50, ca_q95] = heat_release_func2(deg, dq_dtheta, q) [Nr Nc]=size(dq_dtheta); [dq_dtheta_max, index]=max(dq_dtheta); ca_dq_dtheta_max=deg(index)'; [q_max, index]=max(q); % ca_q_max=deg(index)'; deg_red=deg(497:945,:); q_red=q(497:945,:); 163 q5diff=abs(q_red-0.05*repmat(q_max, [length(q_red) 1])); [r5 c5]=find(q5diff==repmat(min(q5diff), [length(q_red) 1])); q10diff=abs(q_red-0.10*repmat(q_max, [length(q_red) 1])); [r10 c10]=find(q10diff==repmat(min(q10diff), [length(q_red) 1])); q50diff=abs(q_red-0.50*repmat(q_max, [length(q_red) 1])); [r50 c50]=find(q50diff==repmat(min(q50diff), [length(q_red) 1])); q95diff=abs(q_red-0.95*repmat(q_max, [length(q_red) 1])); [r95 c95]=find(q95diff==repmat(min(q95diff), [length(q_red) 1])); ca_q5=deg_red(r5)'; ca_q10=deg_red(r10)'; ca_q50=deg_red(r50)'; ca_q95=deg_red(r95)'; %Find polytropic index of compression and expansion function [poly_comp poly_exp]=polytropic_func(deg, vol, p, IVC, EVO) comp1=find(deg==IVC); comp2=find(deg==-61); exp2=find(deg==61); exp1=find(deg==EVO); poly_comp=-(log10(p(comp2,:))-log10(p(comp1,:)))./(log10(vol(comp2,:))-log10(vol(comp1,:))); poly_exp=-(log10(p(exp2,:))-log10(p(exp1,:)))./(log10(vol(exp2,:))-log10(vol(exp1,:))); 164 Appendix B ? Ideal Squish Velocity Model In order to make an idealized prediction of squish velocity as a function of crank angle, the combustion chamber is divided into two zones, around which control volumes are constructed. The first control surface encompasses the volume above the squish area of the piston, and the second the volume above the piston cavity or bowl. The volumes enclosed by the control surfaces change as the piston travels during the compression stroke. Application of the continuity equation for the control volumes gives the following relations ! V 1d"1dt= v p A 1 "1 # v s A Z B "2 B.1 and ! V 2d"2dt= v p A 2 "2 + v s A Z B "2 B.2 where ! V 1 and ! V 2 are the volumes enclosed by the two control surfaces, ! "1 and ! "2 are the densities in the two control volumes, ! v p is the piston speed, ! A 1 and ! A 2 are the area of the piston crown above the squish area and piston cavity, respectively, ! v s is the radially inward squish velocity, and ! A Z B is the area of intersection between the two zones described above. If the cylinder density is assumed to be uniform, then ! "1 and ! "2 are equal, and equations B.1 and B.2 can be combined yielding 165 ! vsvp=V2V1"A2A1AZBA11 +V2V1# $ % & ' ( B.3 ! A 1 and ! A 2 are constants, and ! A Z B , ! V 1 and ! V 2 can be calculated as a function of crank angle from engine geometry. Therefore the instantaneous squish velocity can de predicted as a function of crank angle. For the case of open channel squish jet pistons, the squish fence or parapet and fence openings or crenellations are included in the squish area, and their geometry is considered in calculating ! A 1. The model does not consider heat transfer or mass leakage from the cylinder, and the volume of the top compression ring land crevice is neglected in calculating ! V 1. The MATLAB implementation of this model follows, initialized with geometric data for the BIP chamber. 166 %Calculate squish velocity as a function of crank angle %Two-zone homopycnic model with zone boundary at perimeter of piston bowl %Eric Kastanis %Dept. of Mechanical Engineering %University of British Columbia %11/23/2009 h_c=4.6; %clearance height [mm] d_b=56.08; %bowl opening diamter [mm] v_b=25.26; %bowl volume [cm^3] h_f=0; %fence height [mm] w_f=0; %fence width [mm] n_f=0; %number of fence openings [-] w_o=0; %fence opening width [mm] bore=80.29; %[mm] stroke=88.9; %[mm] conrod=158.013; %[mm] h_comp=40.4241; %[mm] %deck height [mm] h_deck = stroke/2 + conrod + h_comp + h_c; %zone 1 clearance volume [cm^3] v_c_z1=(1/4*pi()*((bore^2-(d_b+2*w_f)^2)*h_f + ... (bore^2-d_b^2)*h_c) + n_f*w_f*w_o*h_f)/1000; %zone 2 clearance volume (above bowl) [cm^3] v_c_z2=1/4*pi()*d_b^2*(h_f+h_c)/1000; %total clearance volume [cm^3] v_c=v_b+v_c_z1+v_c_z2; %swept volume [cm^3] v_s=1/4*pi()*bore^2*stroke/1000; %compression ratio [-] r_c=(v_c+v_s)/v_c; a_b=1/4*pi()*d_b^2; %bowl opening area [mm^2] a_s=1/4*pi()*(bore^2-d_b^2); %squish area [mm^2] a_zb_c=pi()*d_b*h_c+n_f*w_f*h_f; %TDC zone boundary area [mm^2] spd=1500; %engine speed [rpm] deg=[-180:0.5:539.5]'; piston_disp=stroke/2*cosd(deg)+sqrt(conrod^2-((stroke/2)*sind(deg)).^2)+h_comp; %[mm] piston_vel=(-1/2*stroke*sind(deg)-stroke^2*sind(deg).*cosd(deg)... ./(4*sqrt(conrod^2-(0.5*stroke*sind(deg)).^2)))*2*pi()/60.*spd/1000; %[m/s] v_cyl=v_c+1/4*pi()*(bore/10)^2*(conrod+stroke/2+h_comp-piston_disp)/10; %[cm^3] 167 v_z1=v_c_z1+1/4*pi()*(bore^2-d_b^2)*(h_deck-h_c-piston_disp)/1000; %[cm^3] v_z2=v_b+v_c_z2+1/4*pi()*d_b^2*(h_deck-h_c-piston_disp)/1000; %[cm^3] a_zb=a_zb_c+pi()*d_b*(h_deck-h_c-piston_disp); %[mm^2] r_sq_pist=(v_z2./v_z1-a_b/a_s)./(a_zb/a_s.*(1+v_z2./v_z1)); %[-] squish_vel=piston_vel.*r_sq_pist; %[m/s] piston_vel_mean=2*stroke/1000*spd/60; %[m/s] 168 Appendix C ? Combustion Chamber Drawings 169 Figure C.1 ? Bowl-in-Piston (BIP) Piston Crown 170 Figure C.2 ? Squish Jet 'A' (SJA) Piston Crown 171 Figure C.3 ? Squish Jet 'B' (SJB) Piston Crown 172 Figure C.4 ? Cylinder Head Internal Geometry 173 Figure C.5 ? Cylinder Head External Geometry 174 Figure C.6 ? Cylinder Head Port Geometry 175 Appendix D ? Uncertainty Calculation Methodology Calculation methodology for uncertainty bounds on relative air-fuel ratio (?) is presented here. Uncertainty bounds for the remainder of performance parameters of interest are calculated in an identical fashion. In the simplest of terms, relative air-fuel ratio is a function of the mass flow rates of fuel and air, as well as of the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. ! " =m.air,drym.fuel1A / F( )stoich D.1 However, while the fuel mass flow is measured directly by means of an instrument, air mass flow is calculated from other parameters, which themselves are intermediate calculations originating from instrument measurements. Air mass flow depends on air volume flow, air density, and the specific humidity of air ! m.air , dry =11 + "#air $ V.air D.2 Air volume flow is a function of inlet air temperature, inlet air pressure, and pressure drop across the LFE ! V.air = (B"#PLFE + C"#PLFE2 )"? std"110.4 + Tair14.58Tair32 D.3 Inlet air density is dependent on inlet air temperature and inlet air pressure, as well as the partial pressure of water in air 176 ! "air =P airR air+ P H 2 O1R H 2 O#1R air$ % & & ' ( ) ) Tair D.4 Specific humidity is also dependent on partial pressure of water in air ! " = 0.62198P H 2OP air# P H 2O D.5 Partial pressure of water in air is calculated from the ambient relative humidity, according to ! P H 2 O = RH " P sat , H 2 O D.6 Relative air-fuel ratio is therefore a function of LFE delta pressure, inlet air temperature, inlet air pressure, ambient relative humidity, and fuel mass flow, as given by the expression ! " = " #PLFE ,Tair,Pair,RH,m.fuel$ % & ' ( ) D.7 Calculating the experimental uncertainty requires calculating all the partial derivatives of the dependent variable with respect to the independent variables, as follows ! "#"$ PLFE="#"m.air,dry"m.air,dry"V.air"V.air"$P LFE D.8 ! "#" T air="#" m.air , dry" m.air , dry" V.air" V.air" T air+" m.air , dry"$ air"$ air" T air% & ' ' ( ) * * D.9 ! "#"P air="#" m.air , dry" m.air , dry"$ air"$ air" P air+" m.air , dry"%"%"P air& ' ( ( ) * + + D.10 ! "#" RH="#" m.air , dry" m.air , dry"$ air"$ air" P H2O" P H2O" RH+" m.air , dry"%"%"P H2O" P H2O" RH& ' ( ( ) * + + D.11 177 ! "#"m.fuel= $m.air,drym.fuel% & ' ( ) * 21A /F( )stoich D.12 As can be seen, the calculation of partial derivatives for the intermediate parameters dry air mass flow, air volume flow, inlet air density, partial pressure of water in air, and specific humidity of air with respect to their dependent variables is required. The required partial derivatives are presented here. ! "V.air"#PLFE= (B + 2C$ #PLFE )$ ? std $110.4 + Tair14.58Tair32 D.13 ! "V.air"Tair= (B#$PLFE +C#$PLFE2 )#?std #14.58Tair32 % 110.4 +T( )32#14.58T12& ' ( ) * + 14.582Tair3 D.14 ! "#air"P air=1R air $ T air D.15 ! "#air" P H 2 O=1R H 2 O$1R air% & ' ' ( ) * * Tair D.16 ! "#air"Tair= $P airR air+ P H 2 O1R H 2 O$1R air% & ' ' ( ) * * Tair2 D.17 ! "#"P air= $0.62198P H 2 OP air$ P H 2 O( )2 D.18 ! "#"P H 2O= 0.62198P airP air$ P H 2O( )2 D.19 ! "m.air , dry"#air=11 + $V.air D.20 ! "m.air , dry"V.air=11 + #$ air D.21 178 ! "m.air,dry"#= $11 +#( )2%air & V.air D.22 ! "P H 2 O"RH= P sat , H 2 O D.23 ! "#"m.air,dry=1m.fuel$ A / F( )stoich D.24 Substituting equations D.13 to D.24 into equations D.8 to D.12, the uncertainty on relative air-fuel ratio can be determined as follows ! w" =#"#$PLFEw$PLFE% & ' ( ) * 2+#"#TairwTair% & ' ( ) * 2+#"#PairwPair% & ' ( ) * 2+#"#RHwRH% & ' ( ) * 2+#"#m.fuelwm.fuel% & ' ' ( ) * * 2+ , - - . / 0 0 D.25 where ! w represents the uncertainty value of the parameter denoted by its respective subscript. The result will not be shown due to its algebraic complexity. 179 Appendix E ? Experimental Data 180 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100628_unit1 1 1504 50 -23.0 -5.4 0.012 65.91 0.916 46.0 60 100628_unit1 2 1480 50 -23.0 19.5 0.729 1.07 0.924 49.6 483 100628_unit1 3 1511 100 -23.0 27.8 0.989 1.08 0.983 33.9 489 100628_unit1 4 1502 100 -9.0 24.8 0.989 1.09 0.982 34.6 530 100628_unit1 5 1495 100 -11.0 25.6 0.989 1.08 0.982 35.2 523 100628_unit1 6 1501 100 -13.0 26.1 0.989 1.09 0.983 35.4 514 100628_unit1 7 1498 100 -15.0 26.8 0.989 1.08 0.982 35.8 507 100628_unit1 8 1493 100 -15.5 27.0 0.989 1.08 0.983 36.4 506 100628_unit1 9 1498 100 -9.0 21.8 0.909 1.20 0.982 36.5 520 100628_unit1 10 1497 100 -11.0 22.7 0.909 1.20 0.982 36.8 512 100628_unit1 11 1494 100 -13.0 23.6 0.909 1.19 0.982 36.9 504 100628_unit1 12 1489 100 -15.0 24.5 0.909 1.19 0.982 37.1 495 100628_unit1 13 1496 100 -17.0 24.9 0.909 1.19 0.982 37.2 489 100628_unit1 14 1501 100 -19.0 25.0 0.910 1.19 0.982 37.3 482 100628_unit1 15 1496 100 -21.0 25.4 0.910 1.19 0.982 37.6 476 100628_unit1 16 1497 100 -23.0 25.7 0.910 1.19 0.983 37.7 471 100628_unit1 17 1497 100 -25.0 25.9 0.910 1.19 0.983 37.8 466 100628_unit1 18 1499 100 -11.0 19.3 0.844 1.31 0.979 37.7 506 100628_unit1 19 1501 100 -14.0 20.6 0.844 1.31 0.979 37.8 496 100628_unit1 20 1505 100 -17.0 21.5 0.844 1.31 0.979 37.8 483 100628_unit1 21 1511 100 -21.0 22.6 0.844 1.31 0.979 37.8 469 100628_unit1 22 1509 100 -24.0 23.3 0.844 1.31 0.979 37.9 460 100628_unit1 23 1509 100 -27.0 23.7 0.844 1.31 0.978 38.0 453 100628_unit1 24 1509 100 -30.0 23.9 0.845 1.30 0.979 38.1 447 100628_unit1 25 1512 100 -33.0 24.0 0.844 1.30 0.979 37.9 442 100628_unit1 26 1510 100 -36.0 24.0 0.844 1.30 0.979 38.0 438 100628_unit1 27 1521 100 -17.0 17.0 0.780 1.45 0.978 37.7 485 100628_unit1 28 1506 100 -20.0 18.7 0.780 1.44 0.978 37.7 471 100628_unit1 29 1506 100 -23.0 19.8 0.780 1.44 0.978 37.8 458 100628_unit1 30 1497 100 -26.0 20.9 0.780 1.43 0.980 37.9 447 Table E.1 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 181 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100628_unit1 1 -15.8 -0.01 -0.47 0.0 -1.47 -0.17 -3.2 -37 15 100628_unit1 2 241.1 0.00 2.93 1.2 5.30 6.68 1.0 19 41 100628_unit1 3 224.9 0.00 2.98 1.0 7.55 8.86 1.3 17 43 100628_unit1 4 253.9 8.96 5.40 1.6 6.73 7.92 3.2 17 44 100628_unit1 5 247.2 11.00 5.23 1.5 6.94 8.06 3.1 17 44 100628_unit1 6 241.0 12.47 5.22 1.4 7.09 8.36 2.4 17 43 100628_unit1 7 235.4 14.79 4.96 1.2 7.27 8.53 2.1 17 42 100628_unit1 8 234.3 15.62 4.91 1.2 7.33 8.59 1.8 17 42 100628_unit1 9 266.4 2.93 6.56 1.9 5.91 7.01 5.0 19 49 100628_unit1 10 255.5 3.72 6.33 1.9 6.17 7.27 4.1 19 48 100628_unit1 11 246.9 4.95 6.05 1.9 6.39 7.55 4.0 18 46 100628_unit1 12 238.5 6.73 5.77 1.7 6.64 7.76 3.1 18 45 100628_unit1 13 233.6 8.00 5.39 1.6 6.75 7.87 2.8 18 45 100628_unit1 14 231.7 9.56 5.27 1.6 6.78 8.03 2.3 18 44 100628_unit1 15 228.4 12.37 4.90 1.5 6.91 8.16 1.6 18 44 100628_unit1 16 226.3 14.51 4.66 1.4 6.97 8.23 1.4 18 44 100628_unit1 17 224.5 16.60 4.36 1.3 7.02 8.31 1.3 18 44 100628_unit1 18 279.4 0.98 7.97 2.3 5.23 6.28 7.3 22 56 100628_unit1 19 261.3 1.30 7.02 2.1 5.59 6.59 6.6 21 55 100628_unit1 20 249.1 1.79 7.22 2.1 5.84 6.98 4.5 21 51 100628_unit1 21 236.3 2.89 6.86 2.1 6.14 7.27 3.8 21 50 100628_unit1 22 229.7 4.63 6.59 2.0 6.32 7.48 2.5 21 48 100628_unit1 23 225.4 6.98 6.07 1.9 6.44 7.63 2.1 21 47 100628_unit1 24 223.8 9.87 5.83 1.8 6.49 7.70 1.5 21 47 100628_unit1 25 222.7 12.95 5.41 1.8 6.51 7.75 1.4 22 47 100628_unit1 26 223.2 16.90 4.80 1.7 6.50 7.75 1.0 22 47 100628_unit1 27 288.9 0.32 10.40 3.0 4.60 5.87 8.0 24 63 100628_unit1 28 264.3 0.48 9.77 2.7 5.08 6.23 6.5 24 60 100628_unit1 29 249.6 0.70 9.52 2.6 5.38 6.45 5.8 24 59 100628_unit1 30 238.7 1.19 9.20 2.5 5.67 6.78 4.1 24 54 Table E.2 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 182 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100628_unit1 31 1495 100 -29.0 21.4 0.780 1.42 0.979 37.9 440 100628_unit1 32 1500 100 -32.0 21.6 0.780 1.42 0.980 37.9 433 100628_unit1 33 1501 100 -35.0 21.9 0.780 1.42 0.979 38.0 427 100628_unit1 34 1499 100 -40.0 22.1 0.780 1.41 0.979 38.0 420 100628_unit1 35 1497 100 -44.0 22.0 0.780 1.41 0.979 38.1 416 100628_unit1 36 1505 100 -47.0 21.9 0.780 1.41 0.979 38.0 414 100628_unit1 37 1500 100 -50.0 21.7 0.780 1.40 0.979 38.1 413 100628_unit1 38 1524 100 -55.0 21.3 0.780 1.42 0.978 38.0 412 100628_unit1 39 1502 100 -35.0 16.0 0.704 1.61 0.978 37.6 437 100628_unit1 40 1502 100 -25.0 18.6 0.757 1.48 0.979 38.1 455 100628_unit1 41 1508 100 -28.0 19.2 0.757 1.48 0.978 38.0 447 100628_unit1 42 1502 100 -31.0 20.0 0.757 1.47 0.979 38.2 437 100628_unit1 43 1500 100 -35.0 20.7 0.757 1.47 0.979 38.3 427 100628_unit1 44 1500 100 -39.0 21.1 0.757 1.46 0.978 38.3 420 100628_unit1 45 1502 100 -43.0 21.2 0.757 1.46 0.979 38.3 415 100628_unit1 46 1503 100 -47.0 21.3 0.757 1.46 0.979 38.1 410 100628_unit1 47 1500 100 -52.0 21.2 0.757 1.45 0.979 38.2 408 100628_unit1 48 1500 100 -57.0 20.9 0.757 1.45 0.980 38.3 406 100628_unit1 49 1500 100 -62.0 20.5 0.757 1.44 0.981 38.2 405 100628_unit1 50 1500 100 -45.0 19.6 0.720 1.55 0.979 37.8 411 100628_unit1 51 1500 100 -25.0 15.3 0.720 1.56 0.978 37.8 462 100628_unit1 52 1500 100 -30.0 17.1 0.720 1.56 0.979 37.9 447 100628_unit1 53 1500 100 -35.0 18.3 0.720 1.55 0.979 37.9 432 100628_unit1 54 1500 100 -40.0 19.1 0.720 1.55 0.979 37.8 421 100628_unit1 55 1500 100 -50.0 19.9 0.720 1.54 0.980 37.8 408 100628_unit1 56 1500 100 -53.0 19.9 0.720 1.54 0.979 37.8 404 100628_unit1 57 1500 100 -15.0 26.7 0.989 1.08 0.979 38.4 512 100628_unit1 58 1500 50 -23.0 19.0 0.728 1.08 0.922 56.5 491 100628_unit1 59 1500 50 -15.0 18.2 0.728 1.08 0.922 56.7 512 100628_unit1 60 1501 50 -15.0 -5.2 0.018 44.50 0.921 55.5 96 Table E.3 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1 183 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100628_unit1 31 233.4 1.78 9.07 2.5 5.80 6.93 3.4 25 53 100628_unit1 32 229.8 2.50 9.13 2.5 5.87 7.01 2.8 26 52 100628_unit1 33 226.9 3.77 8.89 2.5 5.94 7.09 2.5 26 51 100628_unit1 34 225.4 7.24 8.00 2.4 5.99 7.19 1.3 27 50 100628_unit1 35 226.1 10.81 7.28 2.3 5.98 7.20 1.1 28 50 100628_unit1 36 226.5 13.34 6.62 2.3 5.94 7.16 1.0 29 51 100628_unit1 37 228.8 16.30 6.36 2.2 5.90 7.15 1.1 30 50 100628_unit1 38 230.3 17.03 6.05 2.3 5.77 7.03 1.4 33 52 100628_unit1 39 280.4 0.20 13.82 4.8 4.34 5.47 10.0 35 72 100628_unit1 40 259.7 0.44 10.82 2.9 5.04 6.14 6.7 27 63 100628_unit1 41 249.9 0.58 11.10 2.9 5.22 6.38 5.7 28 59 100628_unit1 42 240.6 0.93 10.81 2.8 5.44 6.64 4.7 28 56 100628_unit1 43 233.0 1.66 10.61 2.8 5.62 6.80 3.0 28 54 100628_unit1 44 228.9 2.80 10.23 2.7 5.72 6.88 2.5 30 54 100628_unit1 45 227.0 4.15 9.66 2.7 5.77 6.93 2.3 30 54 100628_unit1 46 226.2 6.58 8.93 2.6 5.78 6.97 1.3 32 53 100628_unit1 47 227.9 10.79 7.92 2.6 5.75 6.96 1.2 33 53 100628_unit1 48 231.0 15.19 6.86 2.4 5.67 6.91 1.3 35 53 100628_unit1 49 235.7 20.23 6.47 2.4 5.56 6.83 1.6 37 54 100628_unit1 50 234.0 1.08 13.03 3.2 5.32 6.43 3.4 36 58 100628_unit1 51 299.7 0.19 16.55 4.5 4.16 5.05 13.8 31 78 100628_unit1 52 268.5 0.25 14.47 3.8 4.64 5.70 10.0 31 68 100628_unit1 53 251.4 0.39 13.77 3.5 4.96 6.02 7.3 33 64 100628_unit1 54 240.6 0.63 13.00 3.3 5.18 6.30 4.4 34 60 100628_unit1 55 230.9 1.54 12.41 3.2 5.39 6.56 2.4 38 56 100628_unit1 56 230.6 2.21 11.41 3.2 5.40 6.57 2.4 40 56 100628_unit1 57 235.6 15.20 4.77 1.3 7.26 8.47 2.3 17 43 100628_unit1 58 244.3 0.00 3.08 1.4 5.16 6.52 1.0 19 41 100628_unit1 59 255.7 12.62 4.06 1.6 4.93 6.23 2.0 19 41 100628_unit1 60 -24.2 -0.02 -0.29 0.0 -1.40 -0.18 -2.8 -47 13 Table E.4 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2 184 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100708_unit3 1 1501 50 -23.0 -5.8 0.015 55.51 0.915 47.7 63 100708_unit3 2 1490 50 -23.0 18.4 0.729 1.07 0.925 53.1 489 100708_unit3 3 1997 100 -23.0 23.7 1.166 1.07 0.984 36.2 531 100708_unit3 4 1992 100 -12.0 21.3 1.166 1.08 0.984 37.2 570 100708_unit3 5 1997 100 -15.0 22.2 1.166 1.08 0.981 37.8 560 100708_unit3 6 1996 100 -18.0 22.9 1.166 1.08 0.981 38.4 549 100708_unit3 7 1998 100 -21.0 23.4 1.166 1.07 0.981 38.8 539 100708_unit3 8 1996 100 -24.0 23.9 1.166 1.07 0.981 39.2 529 100708_unit3 9 1996 100 -36.0 22.0 1.060 1.19 0.980 39.4 487 100708_unit3 10 1997 100 -16.0 19.8 1.059 1.20 0.981 39.7 532 100708_unit3 11 2004 100 -18.5 20.3 1.059 1.21 0.981 39.9 526 100708_unit3 12 2000 100 -21.0 20.9 1.059 1.20 0.981 40.2 517 100708_unit3 13 2000 100 -23.5 21.3 1.059 1.20 0.980 40.3 510 100708_unit3 14 2005 100 -26.0 21.5 1.059 1.20 0.981 40.4 505 100708_unit3 15 2003 100 -28.5 21.8 1.059 1.20 0.982 40.5 499 100708_unit3 16 2004 100 -31.0 21.9 1.059 1.20 0.982 40.6 493 100708_unit3 17 2002 100 -33.5 21.8 1.059 1.20 0.981 40.7 490 100708_unit3 18 2001 100 -51.0 19.7 0.981 1.30 0.981 40.7 459 100708_unit3 19 2000 100 -20.0 17.9 0.981 1.32 0.980 40.7 507 100708_unit3 20 2000 100 -23.0 18.6 0.981 1.32 0.981 40.7 498 100708_unit3 21 2001 100 -27.0 19.2 0.981 1.31 0.981 40.8 486 100708_unit3 22 1997 100 -31.0 19.9 0.981 1.31 0.981 40.8 477 100708_unit3 23 1998 100 -35.0 20.0 0.981 1.31 0.982 40.9 471 100708_unit3 24 1998 100 -39.0 20.1 0.981 1.30 0.981 40.9 466 100708_unit3 25 1997 100 -43.0 20.2 0.981 1.30 0.981 40.9 463 100708_unit3 26 1997 100 -47.0 20.0 0.981 1.30 0.980 41.0 460 100708_unit3 27 2001 100 -58.0 18.5 0.913 1.41 0.981 40.7 441 100708_unit3 28 2000 100 -23.0 15.5 0.912 1.43 0.980 40.8 500 100708_unit3 29 2000 100 -26.0 16.4 0.912 1.43 0.980 40.9 489 100708_unit3 30 2000 100 -30.0 17.2 0.912 1.42 0.981 40.9 477 Table E.5 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 185 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100708_unit3 1 -17.6 -0.01 -0.05 0.0 -1.57 -0.16 -2.9 -43 9 100708_unit3 2 253.9 11.54 3.53 1.3 5.00 6.46 1.1 21 41 100708_unit3 3 235.6 14.02 2.88 1.2 6.43 7.85 1.6 19 46 100708_unit3 4 262.1 5.85 3.32 1.7 5.79 7.08 3.4 20 48 100708_unit3 5 250.8 7.57 3.22 1.6 6.04 7.38 3.0 19 48 100708_unit3 6 243.7 9.77 3.31 1.4 6.22 7.60 2.0 19 47 100708_unit3 7 238.0 12.55 3.27 1.4 6.36 7.71 1.7 20 47 100708_unit3 8 233.2 15.54 2.43 1.1 6.50 7.85 1.2 20 47 100708_unit3 9 230.6 17.30 2.67 1.3 5.97 7.34 1.1 24 51 100708_unit3 10 256.0 2.50 4.32 1.9 5.37 6.59 3.6 21 52 100708_unit3 11 249.1 3.04 4.19 1.9 5.51 6.77 2.8 22 50 100708_unit3 12 242.1 4.40 3.98 1.8 5.68 6.98 2.3 21 49 100708_unit3 13 237.5 6.05 3.76 1.7 5.79 7.08 1.9 22 50 100708_unit3 14 235.0 7.56 3.63 1.7 5.83 7.18 1.6 21 50 100708_unit3 15 231.9 9.86 3.28 1.6 5.92 7.25 1.3 22 49 100708_unit3 16 231.2 12.23 3.47 1.5 5.93 7.29 1.2 22 50 100708_unit3 17 232.1 15.11 3.27 1.4 5.92 7.28 1.1 23 51 100708_unit3 18 237.6 19.03 3.99 1.8 5.35 6.75 0.9 31 56 100708_unit3 19 261.4 0.95 6.67 2.3 4.87 6.08 4.3 24 56 100708_unit3 20 252.0 1.32 6.83 2.2 5.05 6.27 3.6 25 54 100708_unit3 21 243.8 2.14 6.80 2.2 5.21 6.50 2.9 25 52 100708_unit3 22 236.2 3.74 6.30 2.1 5.39 6.71 1.9 25 51 100708_unit3 23 234.3 5.76 5.70 2.1 5.43 6.76 1.8 26 53 100708_unit3 24 233.3 8.28 5.59 2.0 5.46 6.83 1.2 27 52 100708_unit3 25 232.3 11.89 4.54 1.9 5.48 6.83 1.1 28 53 100708_unit3 26 234.7 15.73 4.29 1.8 5.43 6.80 1.1 30 54 100708_unit3 27 235.4 6.80 7.22 2.5 5.03 6.32 1.1 41 56 100708_unit3 28 281.6 0.31 8.81 3.0 4.20 5.37 6.9 28 65 100708_unit3 29 266.0 0.40 8.94 2.8 4.45 5.58 5.2 29 62 100708_unit3 30 254.2 0.56 8.96 2.7 4.66 5.89 3.9 29 59 Table E.6 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 186 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100708_unit3 31 2000 100 -34.0 17.8 0.912 1.42 0.981 40.9 467 100708_unit3 32 2000 100 -38.0 18.2 0.912 1.42 0.980 41.0 458 100708_unit3 33 2000 100 -43.0 18.5 0.912 1.42 0.981 41.0 451 100708_unit3 34 2000 100 -47.0 18.6 0.913 1.42 0.980 41.1 447 100708_unit3 35 2000 100 -51.0 18.6 0.913 1.41 0.980 41.1 444 100708_unit3 36 2002 100 -54.0 18.6 0.913 1.41 0.980 41.1 442 100708_unit3 37 2002 100 -43.0 17.2 0.884 1.47 0.981 41.0 451 100708_unit3 38 2002 100 -54.0 17.4 0.884 1.47 0.981 40.9 438 100708_unit3 39 2002 100 -26.0 14.4 0.884 1.48 0.980 41.0 494 100708_unit3 40 2002 100 -29.0 15.1 0.884 1.48 0.980 41.1 483 100708_unit3 41 2002 100 -32.0 15.7 0.884 1.48 0.981 41.2 475 100708_unit3 42 2002 100 -35.0 16.2 0.884 1.48 0.981 41.2 467 100708_unit3 43 2005 100 -38.0 16.5 0.884 1.48 0.981 41.1 460 100708_unit3 44 1997 100 -41.0 17.0 0.884 1.47 0.981 41.1 454 100708_unit3 45 1999 100 -47.0 17.4 0.884 1.47 0.980 41.1 446 100708_unit3 46 1998 100 -51.0 17.6 0.884 1.47 0.980 41.2 441 100708_unit3 47 1998 100 -41.0 16.3 0.876 1.49 0.980 41.2 456 100708_unit3 48 1999 100 -47.0 16.8 0.876 1.48 0.979 41.2 447 100708_unit3 49 1997 100 -30.0 14.7 0.876 1.49 0.979 41.3 480 100708_unit3 50 1997 100 -33.0 15.4 0.876 1.49 0.980 41.4 472 100708_unit3 51 1997 100 -36.0 15.9 0.876 1.49 0.980 41.5 465 100708_unit3 52 1997 100 -39.0 16.4 0.876 1.49 0.980 41.5 459 100708_unit3 53 1997 100 -42.0 16.6 0.876 1.49 0.980 41.5 452 100708_unit3 54 1997 100 -44.0 16.8 0.876 1.48 0.980 41.5 450 100708_unit3 55 1997 100 -44.0 16.8 0.876 1.48 0.980 41.5 449 100708_unit3 56 1997 100 -41.0 18.3 0.912 1.42 0.980 41.6 452 100708_unit3 57 1997 100 -33.0 20.0 0.981 1.30 0.980 41.7 472 100708_unit3 58 1500 50 -23.0 18.5 0.730 1.07 0.921 60.2 486 100708_unit3 59 1501 50 -15.0 17.5 0.730 1.07 0.922 60.2 508 100708_unit3 60 1500 50 -15.0 -5.1 0.026 31.06 0.920 59.4 110 Table E.7 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1 187 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100708_unit3 31 245.4 0.87 8.96 2.7 4.82 6.07 2.8 31 57 100708_unit3 32 240.2 1.34 9.24 2.7 4.93 6.16 2.4 32 56 100708_unit3 33 236.2 2.26 8.67 2.6 5.01 6.26 2.0 34 55 100708_unit3 34 235.0 3.33 8.27 2.6 5.04 6.31 1.5 36 55 100708_unit3 35 234.5 4.60 7.70 2.5 5.05 6.35 1.2 37 55 100708_unit3 36 234.7 5.58 7.40 2.5 5.04 6.33 1.2 39 56 100708_unit3 37 245.7 0.77 11.08 3.1 4.67 5.87 3.8 37 58 100708_unit3 38 242.8 1.71 9.94 3.0 4.72 6.03 3.1 44 56 100708_unit3 39 293.9 0.21 11.55 3.8 3.90 5.02 8.9 32 71 100708_unit3 40 279.8 0.25 11.96 3.6 4.10 5.31 6.6 32 66 100708_unit3 41 268.4 0.31 11.78 3.4 4.27 5.45 5.5 33 65 100708_unit3 42 260.9 0.38 11.69 3.3 4.39 5.59 4.9 35 61 100708_unit3 43 254.7 0.48 11.68 3.2 4.49 5.60 5.0 36 61 100708_unit3 44 248.9 0.65 11.48 3.1 4.62 5.91 3.9 37 57 100708_unit3 45 243.7 1.03 11.06 3.1 4.71 5.97 2.5 40 56 100708_unit3 46 241.0 1.47 10.60 3.0 4.76 6.04 2.4 42 57 100708_unit3 47 256.8 0.45 12.49 3.4 4.43 5.64 4.9 39 61 100708_unit3 48 248.7 0.73 12.12 3.3 4.57 5.82 3.9 41 59 100708_unit3 49 285.4 0.22 13.00 3.8 3.99 5.27 6.9 33 66 100708_unit3 50 273.1 0.27 12.53 3.7 4.17 5.36 6.4 34 66 100708_unit3 51 264.1 0.33 12.45 3.5 4.31 5.51 6.1 35 63 100708_unit3 52 256.4 0.42 11.74 3.4 4.44 5.66 5.0 36 60 100708_unit3 53 252.6 0.54 12.35 3.3 4.50 5.75 4.6 38 59 100708_unit3 54 249.0 0.64 11.64 3.3 4.57 5.77 3.8 40 59 100708_unit3 55 250.3 0.64 12.17 3.3 4.55 5.83 3.6 39 58 100708_unit3 56 239.1 1.87 9.27 2.7 4.95 6.21 2.0 33 55 100708_unit3 57 234.4 5.10 6.15 2.1 5.43 6.74 1.5 25 52 100708_unit3 58 251.5 1.65 3.11 1.4 5.02 6.38 1.2 21 44 100708_unit3 59 266.5 11.27 3.92 1.7 4.74 6.08 2.0 20 43 100708_unit3 60 -34.4 0.00 -0.40 0.0 -1.39 -0.17 -3.2 -69 0 Table E.8 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2 188 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100706_unit2 1 1496 50 -23.0 -6.0 0.015 57.02 0.921 43.3 58 100706_unit2 2 1504 50 -23.0 18.9 0.729 1.08 0.932 50.0 489 100706_unit2 3 2505 100 -23.0 27.1 1.645 1.07 0.980 31.9 569 100706_unit2 4 2507 100 -13.0 24.0 1.645 1.07 0.979 32.5 610 100706_unit2 5 2502 100 -16.0 25.4 1.645 1.07 0.981 33.1 598 100706_unit2 6 2497 100 -19.0 26.3 1.645 1.06 0.981 33.6 588 100706_unit2 7 2497 100 -22.0 27.1 1.645 1.06 0.981 34.0 577 100706_unit2 8 2501 100 -24.0 27.3 1.645 1.06 0.981 34.4 571 100706_unit2 9 2502 100 -16.5 21.6 1.494 1.19 0.980 34.4 581 100706_unit2 10 2507 100 -19.5 22.9 1.494 1.20 0.980 34.5 566 100706_unit2 11 2498 100 -23.5 24.2 1.495 1.19 0.981 34.6 552 100706_unit2 12 2504 100 -27.5 24.9 1.495 1.19 0.980 34.8 538 100706_unit2 13 2500 100 -30.5 25.3 1.495 1.19 0.980 35.0 531 100706_unit2 14 2498 100 -33.5 25.5 1.495 1.18 0.980 35.1 525 100706_unit2 15 2497 100 -35.5 25.6 1.495 1.18 0.980 35.3 522 100706_unit2 16 2497 100 -25.5 24.7 1.495 1.19 0.980 35.3 545 100706_unit2 17 2497 100 -21.5 23.8 1.495 1.19 0.981 35.4 560 100706_unit2 18 2496 100 -18.5 18.9 1.380 1.30 0.980 35.3 567 100706_unit2 19 2499 100 -53.5 23.3 1.380 1.30 0.980 35.2 487 100706_unit2 20 2496 100 -23.0 20.6 1.380 1.30 0.980 35.4 546 100706_unit2 21 2496 100 -27.0 21.9 1.380 1.30 0.980 35.3 530 100706_unit2 22 2496 100 -32.0 22.8 1.380 1.31 0.980 35.2 514 100706_unit2 23 2501 100 -36.0 23.2 1.380 1.31 0.980 35.2 505 100706_unit2 24 2501 100 -41.0 23.5 1.380 1.31 0.980 35.3 497 100706_unit2 25 2497 100 -46.0 23.6 1.380 1.30 0.980 35.4 491 100706_unit2 26 2499 100 -50.0 23.5 1.380 1.30 0.980 35.5 488 100706_unit2 27 2505 100 -48.0 20.9 1.285 1.43 0.978 35.1 480 100706_unit2 28 2502 100 -44.0 20.6 1.285 1.43 0.979 35.1 488 100706_unit2 29 2494 100 -40.5 20.6 1.285 1.42 0.980 35.2 492 100706_unit2 30 2497 100 -38.0 20.1 1.285 1.42 0.979 35.5 499 Table E.9 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 189 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100706_unit2 1 -16.8 0.00 -0.14 0.0 -1.62 -0.18 -3.8 -44 26 100706_unit2 2 245.2 17.14 3.36 1.4 5.13 6.53 1.4 20 42 100706_unit2 3 231.4 12.94 2.83 1.4 7.36 8.84 2.5 19 49 100706_unit2 4 261.0 5.52 3.72 2.0 6.52 7.92 4.2 19 52 100706_unit2 5 247.3 7.93 3.40 1.6 6.90 8.28 3.9 19 51 100706_unit2 6 239.5 10.21 2.99 1.4 7.13 8.55 2.9 19 50 100706_unit2 7 232.4 13.25 2.62 1.2 7.35 8.81 2.1 19 49 100706_unit2 8 230.1 14.89 2.22 1.1 7.41 8.87 2.1 19 50 100706_unit2 9 263.8 2.02 4.55 2.1 5.87 7.29 5.0 21 56 100706_unit2 10 248.8 2.75 4.26 1.9 6.21 7.52 4.6 21 55 100706_unit2 11 236.4 4.96 3.82 1.7 6.56 7.93 2.7 22 53 100706_unit2 12 228.7 7.72 3.16 1.5 6.77 8.15 2.3 22 52 100706_unit2 13 225.3 10.68 2.95 1.4 6.88 8.29 2.3 22 51 100706_unit2 14 224.2 14.28 2.60 1.3 6.92 8.38 1.7 22 50 100706_unit2 15 223.7 16.36 2.25 1.2 6.94 8.37 1.4 23 51 100706_unit2 16 231.5 6.54 3.26 1.6 6.70 8.04 2.7 21 52 100706_unit2 17 240.8 4.10 3.75 1.8 6.45 7.71 4.0 21 55 100706_unit2 18 278.8 0.70 5.76 2.4 5.14 6.40 7.7 24 64 100706_unit2 19 226.7 17.89 3.15 1.6 6.32 7.79 1.3 33 55 100706_unit2 20 256.3 1.09 5.76 2.2 5.59 6.94 5.6 24 60 100706_unit2 21 241.7 1.77 5.89 2.2 5.93 7.21 4.7 25 57 100706_unit2 22 231.7 3.03 5.47 2.1 6.19 7.50 3.4 26 55 100706_unit2 23 227.6 4.54 5.04 2.0 6.29 7.64 3.0 27 55 100706_unit2 24 224.4 7.46 4.39 1.8 6.38 7.77 1.8 28 53 100706_unit2 25 223.9 11.87 3.74 1.7 6.40 7.80 1.6 29 53 100706_unit2 26 224.3 15.07 3.06 1.6 6.38 7.78 1.4 31 54 100706_unit2 27 235.0 1.69 9.33 2.6 5.66 7.01 4.1 39 59 100706_unit2 28 238.4 1.16 8.96 2.7 5.59 6.93 4.5 37 60 100706_unit2 29 238.9 1.08 8.55 2.6 5.59 6.88 4.5 34 60 100706_unit2 30 244.6 0.83 8.67 2.6 5.46 6.71 5.5 33 63 Table E.10 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 190 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100706_unit2 31 2497 100 -36.0 19.8 1.285 1.42 0.979 35.6 504 100706_unit2 32 2495 100 -33.0 19.2 1.285 1.42 0.979 35.7 513 100706_unit2 33 2494 100 -30.0 18.4 1.285 1.41 0.979 35.9 524 100706_unit2 34 2494 100 -27.0 17.7 1.285 1.41 0.979 36.0 535 100706_unit2 35 2494 100 -42.0 20.7 1.285 1.42 0.978 35.9 492 100706_unit2 36 2494 100 -46.0 21.0 1.285 1.42 0.979 35.9 484 100706_unit2 37 2496 100 -38.0 18.1 1.250 1.46 0.979 35.8 507 100706_unit2 38 2499 100 -40.0 18.4 1.250 1.47 0.978 35.7 502 100706_unit2 39 2496 100 -42.0 18.9 1.250 1.46 0.978 35.7 498 100706_unit2 40 2496 100 -36.0 18.0 1.250 1.46 0.978 35.9 511 100706_unit2 41 2497 100 -34.0 17.7 1.250 1.46 0.978 36.0 517 100706_unit2 42 2497 100 -34.0 21.5 1.330 1.35 0.978 36.1 508 100706_unit2 43 2497 100 -64.0 22.2 1.330 1.34 0.979 36.2 475 100706_unit2 44 2497 100 -23.0 18.7 1.330 1.35 0.978 36.3 547 100706_unit2 45 2498 100 -28.0 20.4 1.330 1.36 0.978 36.3 523 100706_unit2 46 2495 100 -38.0 22.2 1.330 1.35 0.979 36.3 497 100706_unit2 47 2496 100 -43.0 22.5 1.330 1.35 0.978 36.2 489 100706_unit2 48 2496 100 -48.0 22.7 1.330 1.35 0.978 36.3 484 100706_unit2 49 2498 100 -53.0 22.6 1.330 1.35 0.974 36.4 479 100706_unit2 50 2498 100 -59.0 22.4 1.330 1.35 0.974 36.4 476 100706_unit2 51 2498 100 -59.0 22.1 1.304 1.38 0.974 36.3 472 100706_unit2 52 2498 100 -25.0 18.2 1.304 1.39 0.974 36.5 538 100706_unit2 53 2498 100 -32.0 20.2 1.304 1.39 0.974 36.5 511 100706_unit2 54 2498 100 -39.0 21.3 1.304 1.39 0.974 36.3 493 100706_unit2 55 2499 100 -46.0 21.9 1.304 1.39 0.973 36.3 483 100706_unit2 56 2498 100 -53.0 22.2 1.304 1.39 0.974 36.4 476 100706_unit2 57 2498 100 -23.0 27.3 1.645 1.05 0.975 37.2 574 100706_unit2 58 1498 50 -23.0 19.0 0.729 1.08 0.927 56.4 485 100706_unit2 59 1498 50 -15.0 18.0 0.729 1.08 0.928 56.5 505 100706_unit2 60 1497 50 -15.0 -5.0 0.021 38.87 0.926 55.7 109 Table E.11 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1 191 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100706_unit2 31 248.5 0.70 8.71 2.7 5.37 6.69 5.5 32 63 100706_unit2 32 256.2 0.56 8.69 2.7 5.21 6.49 6.8 32 65 100706_unit2 33 267.3 0.45 8.64 2.8 5.00 6.29 7.3 30 67 100706_unit2 34 278.5 0.37 8.56 3.0 4.80 5.99 8.9 30 71 100706_unit2 35 237.8 1.23 8.49 2.6 5.62 6.94 4.5 35 58 100706_unit2 36 234.0 1.80 8.22 2.6 5.71 7.06 3.9 36 57 100706_unit2 37 263.7 0.41 10.52 3.3 4.93 6.19 7.9 36 68 100706_unit2 38 260.2 0.47 10.97 3.3 4.99 6.29 7.5 37 68 100706_unit2 39 253.3 0.54 10.40 3.1 5.13 6.43 6.2 38 65 100706_unit2 40 266.3 0.37 10.23 3.3 4.88 NaN NaN NaN NaN 100706_unit2 41 271.1 0.35 10.32 3.4 4.79 6.14 11.2 32 70 100706_unit2 42 237.1 1.65 6.89 2.3 5.83 7.16 3.9 28 57 100706_unit2 43 229.8 18.19 4.08 1.9 6.01 7.43 1.5 40 56 100706_unit2 44 272.8 0.55 6.83 2.6 5.07 6.38 6.6 26 65 100706_unit2 45 249.4 0.91 6.94 2.3 5.54 6.86 4.6 27 59 100706_unit2 46 229.9 2.68 6.37 2.2 6.01 7.29 3.0 30 56 100706_unit2 47 226.4 4.30 5.69 2.1 6.11 7.42 2.7 31 55 100706_unit2 48 224.8 6.84 4.89 2.0 6.15 7.50 2.5 33 55 100706_unit2 49 224.8 9.39 4.42 2.0 6.15 7.52 1.6 36 55 100706_unit2 50 226.8 13.96 3.85 1.9 6.09 7.50 1.3 39 55 100706_unit2 51 226.3 8.68 5.58 2.2 5.99 7.37 1.5 40 56 100706_unit2 52 274.3 0.45 7.49 2.8 4.94 6.19 7.6 27 68 100706_unit2 53 246.9 0.84 7.73 2.5 5.49 6.74 5.4 29 61 100706_unit2 54 233.7 1.67 7.54 2.4 5.79 7.06 3.4 32 59 100706_unit2 55 227.6 3.18 6.78 2.4 5.95 7.28 2.6 34 56 100706_unit2 56 225.0 6.23 5.76 2.4 6.02 7.37 2.2 37 55 100706_unit2 57 230.0 14.70 1.99 1.2 7.42 8.82 2.0 18 47 100706_unit2 58 245.0 0.86 3.16 1.6 5.16 6.50 1.2 19 42 100706_unit2 59 258.5 10.73 4.07 1.8 4.89 6.19 2.1 19 41 100706_unit2 60 -28.0 -0.03 -0.41 0.0 -1.37 -0.17 -3.2 -59 5 Table E.12 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2 192 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100709_unit4 1 1499 50 -23.0 -6.0 0.016 51.41 0.911 46.6 58 100709_unit4 2 1501 50 -23.0 18.3 0.730 1.07 0.922 54.5 490 100709_unit4 3 1505 100 -16.0 49.5 1.799 1.14 1.732 36.3 503 100709_unit4 4 1497 100 -18.0 50.6 1.799 1.14 1.745 36.7 498 100709_unit4 5 1507 100 -14.0 47.9 1.799 1.14 1.726 37.1 515 100709_unit4 6 1506 100 -12.0 46.5 1.799 1.14 1.730 37.3 525 100709_unit4 7 1499 100 -25.0 50.0 1.699 1.21 1.735 37.5 470 100709_unit4 8 1493 100 -23.0 49.2 1.699 1.21 1.738 37.6 471 100709_unit4 9 1491 100 -21.0 48.8 1.699 1.21 1.739 37.7 479 100709_unit4 10 1501 100 -19.0 47.2 1.699 1.21 1.725 37.8 485 100709_unit4 11 1503 100 -17.0 46.0 1.699 1.20 1.724 37.9 497 100709_unit4 12 1502 100 -15.0 44.7 1.699 1.21 1.722 38.1 506 100709_unit4 13 1507 100 -13.0 43.1 1.699 1.20 1.715 38.2 516 100709_unit4 14 1501 100 -33.0 48.4 1.598 1.28 1.725 38.3 443 100709_unit4 15 1501 100 -31.0 47.9 1.598 1.28 1.721 38.3 446 100709_unit4 16 1504 100 -29.0 47.3 1.598 1.28 1.719 38.3 450 100709_unit4 17 1501 100 -27.0 46.7 1.598 1.28 1.720 38.4 455 100709_unit4 18 1502 100 -25.0 46.1 1.598 1.28 1.715 38.5 461 100709_unit4 19 1498 100 -23.0 45.4 1.598 1.28 1.716 38.6 469 100709_unit4 20 1496 100 -21.0 44.4 1.598 1.27 1.718 38.7 475 100709_unit4 21 1495 100 -19.0 43.2 1.598 1.28 1.718 38.8 483 100709_unit4 22 1498 100 -44.0 46.2 1.499 1.36 1.720 38.8 417 100709_unit4 23 1502 100 -42.0 46.1 1.499 1.36 1.716 38.6 419 100709_unit4 24 1502 100 -40.0 45.9 1.499 1.36 1.714 38.7 422 100709_unit4 25 1506 100 -38.0 45.5 1.499 1.36 1.710 38.6 426 100709_unit4 26 1506 100 -36.0 45.2 1.499 1.36 1.706 38.7 430 100709_unit4 27 1508 100 -34.0 44.5 1.499 1.36 1.700 38.7 435 100709_unit4 28 1501 100 -32.0 44.4 1.499 1.36 1.703 38.7 438 100709_unit4 29 1500 100 -30.0 43.4 1.499 1.36 1.702 38.7 444 100709_unit4 30 1502 100 -28.0 42.8 1.499 1.36 1.701 38.8 450 Table E.13 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 193 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100709_unit4 1 -18.5 0.02 -0.12 0.0 -1.63 -0.17 -3.2 -45 19 100709_unit4 2 253.3 17.91 3.56 1.4 4.98 6.43 1.2 21 42 100709_unit4 3 230.9 11.00 4.73 1.2 13.42 14.28 3.9 22 46 100709_unit4 4 227.0 10.59 4.50 1.2 13.72 14.87 2.8 21 44 100709_unit4 5 238.2 9.17 4.56 1.4 12.99 13.71 4.1 23 47 100709_unit4 6 245.6 7.65 4.59 1.6 12.61 13.43 3.8 22 47 100709_unit4 7 216.5 11.66 4.63 1.3 13.57 14.60 2.3 24 45 100709_unit4 8 221.1 10.07 5.23 1.4 13.35 14.36 2.7 24 46 100709_unit4 9 223.1 8.31 4.98 1.3 13.25 14.02 2.6 24 47 100709_unit4 10 229.2 6.44 5.74 1.4 12.81 13.59 3.8 24 48 100709_unit4 11 234.9 5.13 5.06 1.4 12.48 13.34 3.9 24 48 100709_unit4 12 241.5 4.35 5.03 1.5 12.14 12.67 5.1 24 51 100709_unit4 13 249.7 3.61 5.09 1.7 11.71 12.15 5.9 24 53 100709_unit4 14 210.1 11.16 5.23 1.6 13.14 14.11 1.6 26 48 100709_unit4 15 212.6 9.18 5.41 1.6 12.99 13.86 2.2 27 50 100709_unit4 16 214.8 7.23 5.77 1.6 12.83 13.75 3.0 27 49 100709_unit4 17 217.9 5.75 5.88 1.6 12.67 13.63 2.7 26 48 100709_unit4 18 220.6 4.91 5.75 1.6 12.51 13.04 4.2 27 51 100709_unit4 19 224.6 3.87 5.65 1.6 12.32 13.33 3.3 25 49 100709_unit4 20 229.7 3.08 5.77 1.6 12.06 12.66 4.6 26 52 100709_unit4 21 236.5 2.46 5.94 1.6 11.72 12.19 5.9 27 54 100709_unit4 22 207.1 11.54 5.87 2.0 12.53 13.39 1.6 32 53 100709_unit4 23 207.0 10.11 6.01 2.0 12.51 13.36 1.8 31 52 100709_unit4 24 207.8 8.41 6.33 2.0 12.46 13.28 2.1 31 52 100709_unit4 25 209.1 6.66 6.58 2.0 12.35 13.20 2.2 30 51 100709_unit4 26 210.7 5.39 6.70 2.0 12.26 13.08 2.8 30 52 100709_unit4 27 213.6 4.17 6.92 2.0 12.06 12.94 2.4 29 52 100709_unit4 28 215.1 3.58 6.84 1.9 12.04 12.69 3.1 30 54 100709_unit4 29 219.8 2.74 7.03 1.9 11.79 12.62 3.4 29 53 100709_unit4 30 222.9 2.15 6.90 1.9 11.61 12.27 4.9 29 55 Table E.14 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 194 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100709_unit4 31 1497 100 -26.0 42.0 1.499 1.36 1.704 39.0 457 100709_unit4 32 1497 100 -24.0 40.6 1.499 1.36 1.704 39.0 464 100709_unit4 33 1496 100 -51.0 44.8 1.449 1.41 1.721 39.0 406 100709_unit4 34 1499 100 -49.0 44.7 1.449 1.41 1.715 39.0 408 100709_unit4 35 1499 100 -47.0 44.7 1.449 1.40 1.711 39.0 410 100709_unit4 36 1502 100 -45.0 44.5 1.449 1.40 1.705 39.0 412 100709_unit4 37 1503 100 -43.0 44.1 1.449 1.41 1.704 38.9 415 100709_unit4 38 1500 100 -41.0 44.0 1.449 1.40 1.704 38.8 417 100709_unit4 39 1499 100 -39.0 43.9 1.449 1.40 1.704 38.8 421 100709_unit4 40 1499 100 -37.0 43.4 1.449 1.40 1.702 38.8 425 100709_unit4 41 1499 100 -35.0 42.9 1.449 1.40 1.699 38.8 430 100709_unit4 42 1498 100 -33.0 42.0 1.449 1.40 1.699 38.9 435 100709_unit4 43 1500 50 -23.0 18.4 0.730 1.08 0.920 58.3 480 100709_unit4 44 1500 50 -15.0 17.4 0.730 1.08 0.922 58.9 503 100709_unit4 45 1499 50 -15.0 -5.2 0.029 28.90 0.920 57.6 89 Table E.15 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/SC, Points 31 ? 45: Part 1 195 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100709_unit4 31 228.0 1.65 6.76 1.9 11.39 11.81 5.8 30 58 100709_unit4 32 235.6 1.23 7.36 1.9 11.03 11.60 6.0 29 58 100709_unit4 33 206.5 11.72 6.21 2.2 12.16 13.05 1.6 35 55 100709_unit4 34 206.5 10.72 6.35 2.2 12.13 13.02 1.8 35 54 100709_unit4 35 206.8 8.95 6.73 2.2 12.12 13.01 1.5 34 54 100709_unit4 36 207.2 7.50 6.94 2.2 12.07 12.87 2.4 35 54 100709_unit4 37 208.6 5.90 7.38 2.3 11.98 12.72 2.8 34 55 100709_unit4 38 209.6 4.67 7.72 2.2 11.96 12.58 3.7 34 56 100709_unit4 39 210.7 3.92 7.57 2.2 11.90 12.60 2.9 33 55 100709_unit4 40 212.8 3.03 7.65 2.2 11.78 12.42 3.6 33 55 100709_unit4 41 215.5 2.45 7.60 2.1 11.63 12.24 3.8 32 56 100709_unit4 42 219.9 1.78 7.75 2.1 11.40 12.22 3.7 31 54 100709_unit4 43 252.1 17.30 3.17 1.5 5.01 6.34 1.5 21 44 100709_unit4 44 267.0 9.95 4.18 1.8 4.73 6.03 2.4 20 43 100709_unit4 45 -36.8 0.01 -0.17 0.0 -1.41 -0.16 -2.9 -49 2 Table E.16 ? Performance Data, BIP, 1500/SC, Points 31 ? 45: Part 2 196 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100712_unit5 1 1499 50 -23.0 -6.1 0.006 135.17 0.912 41.6 52 100712_unit5 2 1499 50 -23.0 19.1 0.729 1.08 0.924 48.7 492 100712_unit5 3 2010 100 -16.0 43.0 2.146 1.19 1.735 32.7 557 100712_unit5 4 2001 100 -18.0 44.4 2.146 1.19 1.741 33.4 549 100712_unit5 5 2013 100 -20.0 45.4 2.146 1.19 1.739 34.0 540 100712_unit5 6 2000 100 -22.0 46.5 2.146 1.19 1.749 34.5 531 100712_unit5 7 1999 100 -31.0 45.8 2.013 1.26 1.744 35.1 496 100712_unit5 8 2008 100 -29.0 45.1 2.013 1.27 1.742 35.2 501 100712_unit5 9 1999 100 -27.0 45.0 2.013 1.26 1.743 35.4 506 100712_unit5 10 2000 100 -25.0 44.1 2.013 1.26 1.741 35.7 512 100712_unit5 11 2000 100 -23.0 43.2 2.013 1.26 1.739 35.9 518 100712_unit5 12 2001 100 -21.0 42.3 2.013 1.26 1.735 36.1 526 100712_unit5 13 2005 100 -19.0 40.9 2.013 1.26 1.729 36.3 534 100712_unit5 14 1994 100 -41.0 44.0 1.880 1.34 1.740 36.3 466 100712_unit5 15 2002 100 -39.0 43.6 1.880 1.34 1.735 36.4 469 100712_unit5 16 2003 100 -37.0 43.3 1.880 1.34 1.731 36.4 473 100712_unit5 17 1996 100 -35.0 43.0 1.880 1.34 1.732 36.4 477 100712_unit5 18 1996 100 -33.0 42.4 1.880 1.34 1.731 36.4 482 100712_unit5 19 1996 100 -31.0 42.0 1.880 1.34 1.727 36.5 488 100712_unit5 20 1997 100 -29.0 41.0 1.880 1.34 1.727 36.6 494 100712_unit5 21 1997 100 -27.0 40.4 1.880 1.34 1.724 36.7 499 100712_unit5 22 1997 100 -56.0 40.9 1.747 1.44 1.733 36.5 439 100712_unit5 23 1998 100 -54.0 40.8 1.747 1.43 1.730 36.5 440 100712_unit5 24 1998 100 -52.0 40.8 1.747 1.44 1.729 36.4 441 100712_unit5 25 1998 100 -50.0 40.7 1.747 1.43 1.725 36.3 443 100712_unit5 26 1997 100 -48.0 40.5 1.747 1.43 1.725 36.3 446 100712_unit5 27 1998 100 -46.0 40.4 1.746 1.43 1.723 36.3 449 100712_unit5 28 1997 100 -46.0 40.2 1.746 1.43 1.725 36.3 449 100712_unit5 29 1997 100 -44.0 40.1 1.746 1.43 1.721 36.3 452 100712_unit5 30 1998 100 -42.0 39.8 1.746 1.43 1.720 36.3 455 Table E.17 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 197 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100712_unit5 1 -7.1 -0.01 0.00 0.0 -1.69 -0.16 -3.1 -39 12 100712_unit5 2 243.7 9.79 3.38 1.7 5.33 6.60 1.3 20 41 100712_unit5 3 237.5 5.90 4.15 1.5 11.99 12.52 5.3 23 53 100712_unit5 4 230.8 6.97 4.10 1.4 12.39 13.00 4.5 23 52 100712_unit5 5 224.5 8.38 4.08 1.3 12.67 13.19 4.1 23 51 100712_unit5 6 220.6 10.20 4.20 1.2 12.97 13.66 2.8 23 49 100712_unit5 7 210.0 10.70 4.23 1.3 12.79 13.43 2.2 26 51 100712_unit5 8 212.2 8.71 4.51 1.4 12.60 13.23 3.3 26 52 100712_unit5 9 214.0 7.61 4.43 1.4 12.55 13.26 2.8 24 51 100712_unit5 10 218.1 6.25 4.66 1.4 12.31 12.82 4.3 25 52 100712_unit5 11 222.8 5.09 5.01 1.4 12.05 12.50 4.4 26 54 100712_unit5 12 227.1 4.03 4.69 1.5 11.82 12.18 4.9 25 54 100712_unit5 13 234.5 3.21 5.23 1.6 11.42 11.78 5.5 25 56 100712_unit5 14 204.9 11.00 4.67 1.6 12.28 12.89 1.9 31 54 100712_unit5 15 205.8 9.29 4.99 1.6 12.17 12.77 1.8 29 55 100712_unit5 16 207.0 7.68 5.05 1.7 12.10 12.76 2.0 28 53 100712_unit5 17 209.4 6.15 5.46 1.7 12.00 12.59 2.7 29 54 100712_unit5 18 212.0 4.94 5.84 1.7 11.85 12.37 3.3 29 55 100712_unit5 19 214.4 3.96 5.63 1.7 11.72 12.07 5.0 30 56 100712_unit5 20 219.1 3.07 5.86 1.7 11.46 12.00 4.1 28 55 100712_unit5 21 222.4 2.43 5.85 1.7 11.29 12.01 3.8 27 54 100712_unit5 22 204.1 10.35 5.39 2.1 11.43 12.04 1.7 40 58 100712_unit5 23 204.5 9.20 5.75 2.1 11.41 12.02 1.7 39 58 100712_unit5 24 204.5 7.95 6.01 2.1 11.41 11.94 2.5 38 59 100712_unit5 25 205.5 6.84 6.51 2.2 11.35 11.87 2.8 38 58 100712_unit5 26 206.2 5.64 6.62 2.2 11.31 11.93 2.7 36 57 100712_unit5 27 207.0 4.65 6.87 2.2 11.27 11.74 3.2 37 58 100712_unit5 28 207.7 4.62 6.96 2.2 11.23 11.88 2.5 35 57 100712_unit5 29 208.4 3.81 7.08 2.2 11.20 11.63 3.7 36 60 100712_unit5 30 209.9 3.22 7.17 2.2 11.12 11.56 3.5 35 59 Table E.18 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 198 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100712_unit5 31 1998 100 -40.0 39.3 1.746 1.43 1.719 36.3 459 100712_unit5 32 1998 100 -38.0 38.8 1.746 1.43 1.720 36.4 464 100712_unit5 33 1998 100 -36.0 38.1 1.746 1.43 1.716 36.4 470 100712_unit5 34 1997 100 -47.0 37.8 1.681 1.49 1.716 36.4 446 100712_unit5 35 1998 100 -68.0 39.1 1.681 1.49 1.730 36.4 427 100712_unit5 36 1998 100 -65.0 39.2 1.681 1.48 1.726 36.3 428 100712_unit5 37 1997 100 -62.0 39.2 1.681 1.48 1.726 36.2 429 100712_unit5 38 1998 100 -59.0 39.1 1.681 1.48 1.724 36.2 431 100712_unit5 39 1998 100 -56.0 38.9 1.681 1.48 1.723 36.2 434 100712_unit5 40 1998 100 -53.0 38.6 1.681 1.48 1.719 36.1 437 100712_unit5 41 1997 100 -50.0 38.2 1.681 1.48 1.718 36.1 442 100712_unit5 42 1998 100 -44.0 37.3 1.681 1.48 1.713 36.1 451 100712_unit5 43 1998 100 -41.0 36.5 1.681 1.48 1.712 36.1 458 100712_unit5 44 1499 50 -23.0 18.8 0.729 1.07 0.919 56.9 484 100712_unit5 45 1499 50 -15.0 17.9 0.729 1.07 0.920 57.1 505 100712_unit5 46 1498 50 -15.0 -5.0 0.014 54.96 0.920 56.2 107 Table E.19 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/SC, Points 31 ? 46: Part 1 199 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100712_unit5 31 212.4 2.54 7.58 2.1 10.98 11.44 3.9 34 61 100712_unit5 32 215.0 1.90 7.56 2.1 10.85 11.28 4.2 34 60 100712_unit5 33 219.3 1.52 7.74 2.1 10.64 11.39 4.5 32 59 100712_unit5 34 213.0 1.99 8.73 2.5 10.54 10.96 5.2 40 63 100712_unit5 35 205.7 9.70 6.24 2.3 10.92 11.57 2.4 50 60 100712_unit5 36 205.3 8.35 6.44 2.3 10.94 11.46 10.5 47 61 100712_unit5 37 205.2 6.82 6.93 2.4 10.94 11.65 1.5 42 59 100712_unit5 38 205.8 5.49 7.44 2.4 10.91 11.46 2.9 45 61 100712_unit5 39 206.7 4.38 7.77 2.4 10.86 11.33 3.6 44 61 100712_unit5 40 208.3 3.47 8.21 2.4 10.78 11.46 2.5 40 59 100712_unit5 41 210.6 2.57 8.55 2.4 10.66 11.14 3.9 41 62 100712_unit5 42 215.4 1.45 8.91 2.5 10.42 10.87 4.3 39 63 100712_unit5 43 220.5 1.05 9.09 2.5 10.18 10.71 6.2 37 64 100712_unit5 44 247.3 0.00 3.35 1.3 5.25 6.47 1.1 20 44 100712_unit5 45 259.8 11.76 4.27 1.6 5.00 6.19 1.9 20 42 100712_unit5 46 -19.8 -0.03 -0.46 0.0 -1.40 -0.16 -3.1 -70 0 Table E.20 ? Performance Data, BIP, 2000/SC, Points 31 ? 46: Part 2 200 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100721_unit6 1 1501 50 -23.0 -5.8 0.024 36.52 0.914 47.2 60 100721_unit6 2 1501 50 -23.0 18.1 0.729 1.09 0.923 50.8 488 100721_unit6 3 1501 100 -23.0 27.2 0.980 1.08 0.982 34.2 488 100721_unit6 4 1501 100 -22.0 27.0 0.980 1.08 0.983 34.7 489 100721_unit6 5 1501 100 -20.0 26.7 0.980 1.08 0.982 35.1 494 100721_unit6 6 1501 100 -18.0 26.3 0.980 1.08 0.982 35.3 502 100721_unit6 7 1501 100 -16.0 25.8 0.980 1.08 0.982 35.5 509 100721_unit6 8 1501 100 -14.0 25.2 0.980 1.08 0.982 35.7 519 100721_unit6 9 1501 100 -12.0 24.6 0.980 1.08 0.982 35.9 527 100721_unit6 10 1502 100 -23.0 24.1 0.889 1.21 0.981 35.7 475 100721_unit6 11 1502 100 -35.0 25.0 0.889 1.21 0.982 35.8 449 100721_unit6 12 1502 100 -17.0 22.4 0.889 1.22 0.982 35.8 493 100721_unit6 13 1502 100 -19.0 23.0 0.889 1.21 0.981 35.9 488 100721_unit6 14 1502 100 -21.0 23.6 0.889 1.21 0.982 35.9 481 100721_unit6 15 1503 100 -25.0 24.4 0.889 1.21 0.982 35.9 468 100721_unit6 16 1503 100 -28.0 24.7 0.889 1.21 0.980 36.0 462 100721_unit6 17 1503 100 -31.0 24.9 0.889 1.21 0.981 36.0 455 100721_unit6 18 1503 100 -33.0 25.0 0.889 1.21 0.981 36.1 450 100721_unit6 19 1501 100 -31.0 23.2 0.839 1.30 0.981 35.1 445 100721_unit6 20 1507 100 -46.0 23.3 0.839 1.29 0.981 35.4 426 100721_unit6 21 1499 100 -21.0 21.2 0.839 1.29 0.980 35.5 475 100721_unit6 22 1501 100 -24.0 21.4 0.839 1.31 0.979 35.0 466 100721_unit6 23 1501 100 -28.0 22.2 0.839 1.31 0.980 35.5 463 100721_unit6 24 1501 100 -34.0 23.2 0.839 1.30 0.981 35.8 447 100721_unit6 25 1503 100 -37.0 23.5 0.839 1.30 0.981 35.9 439 100721_unit6 26 1503 100 -40.0 23.6 0.839 1.30 0.979 36.0 433 100721_unit6 27 1503 100 -43.0 23.5 0.839 1.29 0.980 36.1 429 100721_unit6 28 1499 100 -37.0 20.9 0.780 1.41 0.979 35.8 434 100721_unit6 29 1499 100 -66.0 20.7 0.780 1.39 0.980 36.1 403 100721_unit6 30 1499 100 -22.0 17.1 0.780 1.42 0.979 35.9 481 Table E.21 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 201 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100721_unit6 1 -27.0 -0.02 -0.46 0.0 -1.62 -0.17 -2.6 -45 8 100721_unit6 2 255.9 12.51 2.90 1.4 5.07 6.32 1.6 23 41 100721_unit6 3 229.8 14.94 2.09 0.9 7.58 8.62 1.5 21 41 100721_unit6 4 231.4 16.77 2.36 0.9 7.53 8.53 1.5 21 41 100721_unit6 5 233.9 14.42 2.59 1.0 7.45 0.00 0.0 132 0 100721_unit6 6 237.4 11.93 2.43 1.0 7.34 8.27 2.2 21 41 100721_unit6 7 241.6 10.32 2.62 1.1 7.21 8.15 2.1 21 41 100721_unit6 8 247.8 8.68 2.64 1.2 7.03 8.00 2.6 21 41 100721_unit6 9 254.1 7.65 2.80 1.3 6.86 7.75 2.7 22 42 100721_unit6 10 235.2 5.28 3.50 1.5 6.72 7.65 2.3 24 45 100721_unit6 11 226.5 17.07 2.36 1.1 6.97 7.97 0.9 25 45 100721_unit6 12 252.0 2.42 4.05 1.7 6.26 7.15 3.4 24 47 100721_unit6 13 245.3 2.96 3.88 1.7 6.44 7.38 3.1 24 46 100721_unit6 14 239.0 4.03 3.73 1.6 6.60 7.46 3.1 24 47 100721_unit6 15 231.6 6.45 3.38 1.5 6.81 7.71 2.4 24 45 100721_unit6 16 228.9 8.45 3.13 1.4 6.89 7.84 1.7 25 45 100721_unit6 17 226.8 11.43 2.73 1.3 6.96 7.91 1.5 25 45 100721_unit6 18 225.9 14.17 2.38 1.2 6.98 7.95 1.0 25 45 100721_unit6 19 230.1 4.02 4.70 1.8 6.48 7.37 2.6 28 50 100721_unit6 20 228.3 18.55 2.74 1.3 6.51 7.52 1.2 31 50 100721_unit6 21 251.9 1.18 5.08 2.0 5.93 6.79 5.0 27 52 100721_unit6 22 249.3 1.30 5.52 2.1 5.98 6.88 5.3 28 53 100721_unit6 23 240.3 2.12 5.30 2.0 6.21 7.09 4.2 29 52 100721_unit6 24 230.3 5.11 4.74 1.9 6.48 7.41 2.3 30 49 100721_unit6 25 226.7 8.00 3.99 1.7 6.57 7.51 1.9 29 50 100721_unit6 26 225.9 10.65 3.56 1.6 6.60 7.56 1.0 29 49 100721_unit6 27 226.7 14.02 3.07 1.4 6.57 7.55 1.1 30 50 100721_unit6 28 238.0 1.24 7.65 2.5 5.83 6.74 3.5 34 56 100721_unit6 29 240.2 21.41 3.24 1.6 5.78 6.84 2.2 42 56 100721_unit6 30 291.5 0.30 7.79 3.0 4.77 5.69 7.7 32 65 Table E.22 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 202 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100721_unit6 31 1499 100 -26.0 18.7 0.780 1.41 0.979 36.1 467 100721_unit6 32 1499 100 -30.0 19.6 0.780 1.41 0.980 36.1 454 100721_unit6 33 1499 100 -34.0 20.4 0.780 1.41 0.980 36.0 443 100721_unit6 34 1499 100 -41.0 21.3 0.780 1.41 0.979 36.2 427 100721_unit6 35 1499 100 -45.0 21.6 0.780 1.40 0.979 36.1 419 100721_unit6 36 1499 100 -49.0 21.7 0.780 1.40 0.979 36.2 414 100721_unit6 37 1499 100 -54.0 21.6 0.780 1.40 0.980 36.2 408 100721_unit6 38 1499 100 -59.0 21.3 0.780 1.39 0.979 36.3 405 100721_unit6 39 1499 100 -63.0 20.9 0.780 1.38 0.980 36.2 403 100721_unit6 40 1499 100 -49.0 20.7 0.757 1.45 0.980 36.0 412 100721_unit6 41 1499 100 -66.0 20.5 0.757 1.44 0.979 36.1 399 100721_unit6 42 1499 100 -29.0 17.5 0.757 1.46 0.980 36.0 460 100721_unit6 43 1499 100 -33.0 18.7 0.757 1.45 0.979 36.1 447 100721_unit6 44 1499 100 -37.0 19.5 0.757 1.46 0.979 36.1 435 100721_unit6 45 1499 100 -41.0 19.9 0.757 1.46 0.978 36.2 426 100721_unit6 46 1499 100 -45.0 20.6 0.757 1.45 0.979 36.2 418 100721_unit6 47 1499 100 -54.0 20.9 0.757 1.45 0.979 36.3 407 100721_unit6 48 1499 100 -58.0 20.9 0.757 1.45 0.979 36.2 403 100721_unit6 49 1500 100 -62.0 20.8 0.757 1.44 0.978 36.3 400 100721_unit6 50 1499 100 -30.5 14.2 0.720 1.54 0.979 36.1 463 100721_unit6 51 1500 100 -53.0 19.2 0.730 1.52 0.979 36.2 411 100721_unit6 52 1500 100 -48.0 18.9 0.730 1.52 0.978 36.2 417 100721_unit6 53 1500 100 -44.0 18.5 0.730 1.52 0.978 36.2 424 100721_unit6 54 1500 100 -39.0 17.5 0.730 1.52 0.978 36.2 436 100721_unit6 55 1499 100 -35.0 16.7 0.730 1.52 0.978 36.2 447 100721_unit6 56 1499 100 -31.0 15.6 0.730 1.52 0.979 36.3 461 100721_unit6 57 1500 100 -15.0 25.5 0.980 1.07 0.980 37.0 517 100721_unit6 58 1501 50 -23.0 18.2 0.729 1.07 0.923 54.8 499 100721_unit6 59 1501 50 -15.0 16.8 0.729 1.06 0.924 54.9 523 100721_unit6 60 1500 50 -15.0 -5.1 0.024 35.12 0.921 54.0 96 Table E.23 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1 203 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100721_unit6 31 266.2 0.43 7.60 2.7 5.22 6.03 7.5 32 62 100721_unit6 32 253.0 0.61 7.69 2.6 5.49 6.40 5.0 33 58 100721_unit6 33 243.8 0.90 7.76 2.5 5.70 6.62 3.9 33 57 100721_unit6 34 233.5 2.14 7.37 2.4 5.95 6.84 3.1 36 55 100721_unit6 35 230.6 3.34 6.89 2.3 6.02 6.97 2.1 35 53 100721_unit6 36 228.8 5.97 5.84 2.1 6.07 7.00 1.8 37 54 100721_unit6 37 229.9 8.65 5.10 2.0 6.04 7.01 1.3 38 55 100721_unit6 38 233.6 14.79 3.86 1.8 5.94 6.97 1.4 40 55 100721_unit6 39 238.0 19.30 3.37 1.7 5.83 6.90 1.9 41 56 100721_unit6 40 233.5 2.20 8.07 2.5 5.77 6.71 2.7 40 56 100721_unit6 41 235.2 10.57 5.81 2.1 5.73 6.63 14.7 45 57 100721_unit6 42 275.2 0.30 9.46 3.2 4.90 5.75 8.9 35 66 100721_unit6 43 257.7 0.43 9.35 3.0 5.23 6.12 5.5 35 63 100721_unit6 44 247.8 0.64 9.40 2.8 5.44 6.41 4.2 36 59 100721_unit6 45 242.9 0.91 9.41 2.7 5.55 6.48 4.1 38 58 100721_unit6 46 235.0 1.57 8.63 2.6 5.74 6.66 3.2 38 57 100721_unit6 47 230.6 3.99 7.20 2.4 5.85 6.81 2.2 42 55 100721_unit6 48 231.1 6.36 6.15 2.3 5.83 6.82 1.5 42 56 100721_unit6 49 232.3 8.81 5.41 2.2 5.80 6.80 1.5 44 56 100721_unit6 50 324.1 0.17 19.23 5.4 3.96 4.69 18.0 40 80 100721_unit6 51 241.9 1.03 11.14 3.1 5.37 6.27 5.3 47 61 100721_unit6 52 245.8 0.69 11.68 3.2 5.29 6.20 5.9 44 62 100721_unit6 53 251.4 0.47 11.95 3.3 5.17 6.04 6.2 42 64 100721_unit6 54 265.4 0.30 12.83 3.7 4.89 5.78 7.1 41 67 100721_unit6 55 279.0 0.24 13.48 4.0 4.66 5.50 8.4 40 71 100721_unit6 56 298.2 0.20 14.06 4.3 4.36 5.17 12.2 39 74 100721_unit6 57 244.7 9.70 2.57 1.2 7.13 8.03 2.3 21 43 100721_unit6 58 255.8 12.42 2.56 1.4 5.07 6.26 1.7 23 44 100721_unit6 59 276.4 6.65 3.56 1.9 4.69 5.84 3.5 23 43 100721_unit6 60 -31.0 -0.03 -0.67 0.0 -1.43 -0.18 -2.9 -73 -3 Table E.24 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2 204 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100722_unit7 1 1499 50 -23.0 -5.8 0.012 67.52 0.913 44.9 59 100722_unit7 2 1500 50 -23.0 18.3 0.729 1.08 0.926 49.2 492 100722_unit7 3 1999 100 -23.0 22.9 1.166 1.09 0.984 32.0 541 100722_unit7 4 1999 100 -31.0 23.8 1.166 1.08 0.983 33.4 523 100722_unit7 5 2001 100 -17.0 21.3 1.166 1.09 0.983 34.1 565 100722_unit7 6 1999 100 -20.0 22.4 1.166 1.09 0.984 34.5 556 100722_unit7 7 2003 100 -26.0 23.6 1.166 1.08 0.984 35.0 536 100722_unit7 8 2005 100 -29.0 24.0 1.166 1.08 0.985 35.2 529 100722_unit7 9 2007 100 -29.0 21.3 1.060 1.21 0.983 35.3 513 100722_unit7 10 1999 100 -43.0 22.0 1.060 1.19 0.984 35.6 487 100722_unit7 11 2000 100 -23.0 20.3 1.060 1.21 0.984 35.6 530 100722_unit7 12 1999 100 -25.5 20.8 1.060 1.21 0.984 35.9 523 100722_unit7 13 2000 100 -31.0 21.8 1.060 1.21 0.984 36.1 507 100722_unit7 14 1997 100 -33.5 22.0 1.060 1.20 0.985 36.2 501 100722_unit7 15 1998 100 -36.0 22.1 1.060 1.20 0.984 36.3 496 100722_unit7 16 1997 100 -38.5 22.1 1.060 1.20 0.984 36.4 491 100722_unit7 17 2000 100 -41.0 22.1 1.060 1.20 0.985 36.5 488 100722_unit7 18 2001 100 -41.0 20.4 0.981 1.31 0.985 36.4 475 100722_unit7 19 2000 100 -60.0 19.7 0.981 1.30 0.983 36.5 457 100722_unit7 20 1996 100 -26.0 18.4 0.981 1.32 0.984 36.5 513 100722_unit7 21 1993 100 -29.0 19.1 0.981 1.32 0.984 36.7 502 100722_unit7 22 1994 100 -33.0 19.7 0.981 1.32 0.984 36.8 489 100722_unit7 23 1997 100 -37.0 20.0 0.981 1.32 0.981 36.9 480 100722_unit7 24 1997 100 -45.0 20.3 0.981 1.31 0.982 36.9 467 100722_unit7 25 1996 100 -49.0 20.3 0.981 1.31 0.981 37.0 463 100722_unit7 26 1995 100 -53.0 20.2 0.981 1.31 0.981 37.0 461 100722_unit7 27 1995 100 -57.0 19.9 0.981 1.30 0.981 37.0 458 100722_unit7 28 1999 100 -42.0 17.8 0.912 1.43 0.981 36.9 469 100722_unit7 29 1999 100 -57.0 18.5 0.912 1.43 0.980 36.9 447 100722_unit7 30 2001 100 -28.0 15.0 0.912 1.44 0.980 37.0 511 Table E.25 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 205 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100722_unit7 1 -14.7 -0.02 -0.54 0.0 -1.62 -0.17 -3.0 -58 8 100722_unit7 2 254.5 12.74 3.00 1.7 5.10 6.37 1.7 23 42 100722_unit7 3 243.3 8.26 2.19 1.3 6.40 7.57 2.7 25 48 100722_unit7 4 233.7 15.68 1.62 1.0 6.66 7.90 1.2 24 49 100722_unit7 5 261.0 5.09 2.75 1.8 5.96 7.07 4.0 24 49 100722_unit7 6 248.5 6.77 2.48 1.6 6.26 7.37 3.5 24 48 100722_unit7 7 235.3 11.28 1.90 1.2 6.60 7.71 2.4 24 48 100722_unit7 8 231.8 13.59 1.69 1.1 6.69 7.80 1.5 25 48 100722_unit7 9 237.2 4.37 3.23 1.7 5.94 7.02 2.6 27 51 100722_unit7 10 230.1 16.43 1.99 1.1 6.15 7.28 1.0 29 52 100722_unit7 11 249.5 2.21 3.49 1.8 5.67 6.66 4.8 27 51 100722_unit7 12 243.9 2.94 3.43 1.8 5.80 6.84 3.1 27 51 100722_unit7 13 232.7 6.37 2.94 1.6 6.08 7.14 2.1 27 50 100722_unit7 14 230.3 8.45 2.70 1.4 6.15 7.23 1.4 27 50 100722_unit7 15 229.3 10.59 2.47 1.4 6.18 7.27 1.4 27 50 100722_unit7 16 229.0 13.02 2.17 1.2 6.18 7.31 1.2 27 51 100722_unit7 17 229.4 15.61 1.98 1.2 6.17 7.28 1.0 28 51 100722_unit7 18 230.2 4.75 4.56 1.8 5.69 6.71 2.3 33 53 100722_unit7 19 237.8 18.90 2.55 1.5 5.51 6.66 1.5 39 57 100722_unit7 20 255.7 0.85 5.11 2.1 5.13 6.16 4.1 29 56 100722_unit7 21 246.2 1.26 5.18 2.1 5.34 6.35 3.6 30 55 100722_unit7 22 239.2 2.06 5.17 2.0 5.49 6.55 2.7 30 53 100722_unit7 23 235.0 2.96 5.11 1.9 5.58 6.64 2.0 31 53 100722_unit7 24 230.8 7.37 4.03 1.8 5.68 6.79 1.3 32 54 100722_unit7 25 231.3 10.72 3.28 1.6 5.67 6.79 1.2 34 54 100722_unit7 26 233.2 14.45 2.77 1.5 5.63 6.77 1.1 36 55 100722_unit7 27 236.1 17.15 2.49 1.4 5.56 6.72 1.5 37 57 100722_unit7 28 244.8 0.81 7.66 2.5 4.97 6.02 3.3 38 60 100722_unit7 29 235.5 2.67 7.16 2.3 5.17 6.25 2.2 45 57 100722_unit7 30 290.3 0.26 8.17 3.1 4.19 5.16 7.8 35 70 Table E.26 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 206 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100722_unit7 31 2000 100 -31.0 15.8 0.912 1.44 0.981 37.2 500 100722_unit7 32 1998 100 -34.0 16.5 0.912 1.44 0.980 37.1 490 100722_unit7 33 2000 100 -37.0 17.1 0.912 1.44 0.980 37.1 480 100722_unit7 34 2001 100 -40.0 17.5 0.912 1.43 0.981 37.2 472 100722_unit7 35 1999 100 -45.0 18.0 0.912 1.43 0.981 37.1 462 100722_unit7 36 1999 100 -48.0 18.2 0.912 1.43 0.982 37.1 456 100722_unit7 37 2000 100 -51.0 18.2 0.912 1.43 0.981 37.1 453 100722_unit7 38 2000 100 -54.0 18.4 0.912 1.42 0.980 37.1 449 100722_unit7 39 2000 100 -40.0 15.8 0.884 1.49 0.981 37.1 479 100722_unit7 40 2001 100 -53.0 16.7 0.884 1.48 0.981 37.1 455 100722_unit7 41 2000 100 -30.0 13.3 0.884 1.49 0.980 37.2 510 100722_unit7 42 2001 100 -32.5 14.0 0.884 1.49 0.981 37.4 504 100722_unit7 43 2002 100 -35.0 14.6 0.884 1.49 0.981 37.4 496 100722_unit7 44 2002 100 -38.0 15.3 0.884 1.49 0.982 37.5 485 100722_unit7 45 2001 100 -43.0 16.1 0.884 1.48 0.982 37.5 471 100722_unit7 46 2001 100 -45.5 16.3 0.884 1.48 0.981 37.6 468 100722_unit7 47 2001 100 -48.0 16.6 0.884 1.48 0.981 37.6 465 100722_unit7 48 2001 100 -50.5 16.6 0.884 1.48 0.982 37.5 460 100722_unit7 49 2000 100 -43.0 15.5 0.876 1.50 0.981 37.6 476 100722_unit7 50 2001 100 -49.0 15.9 0.876 1.50 0.981 37.5 466 100722_unit7 51 1999 100 -33.0 13.3 0.876 1.50 0.981 37.6 503 100722_unit7 52 1999 100 -35.0 13.8 0.876 1.50 0.982 37.7 500 100722_unit7 53 1999 100 -37.0 14.4 0.876 1.50 0.983 37.7 492 100722_unit7 54 1999 100 -39.0 14.7 0.876 1.50 0.983 37.7 487 100722_unit7 55 2003 100 -41.0 15.1 0.876 1.50 0.982 37.7 481 100722_unit7 56 1998 100 -45.0 15.5 0.876 1.50 0.983 37.7 473 100722_unit7 57 2003 100 -47.0 15.5 0.876 1.50 0.982 37.6 471 100722_unit7 58 1503 50 -23.0 18.4 0.731 1.08 0.926 55.8 493 100722_unit7 59 1503 50 -15.0 17.0 0.731 1.07 0.926 55.6 521 100722_unit7 60 1501 50 -15.0 -5.1 0.023 36.89 0.922 54.3 91 Table E.27 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1 207 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100722_unit7 31 275.1 0.29 8.21 2.9 4.43 5.41 6.7 35 67 100722_unit7 32 265.0 0.36 8.41 2.8 4.60 5.66 4.9 36 64 100722_unit7 33 255.5 0.48 8.23 2.7 4.76 5.81 4.6 36 63 100722_unit7 34 249.5 0.64 8.16 2.6 4.87 5.96 3.1 37 60 100722_unit7 35 242.7 0.98 7.94 2.5 5.02 6.12 3.4 39 58 100722_unit7 36 239.0 1.42 7.63 2.4 5.10 6.13 3.3 41 59 100722_unit7 37 239.0 1.52 7.86 2.4 5.09 6.15 3.3 42 60 100722_unit7 38 236.8 2.20 7.88 2.3 5.14 6.22 2.4 44 58 100722_unit7 39 267.4 0.30 10.40 3.3 4.41 5.38 9.5 41 69 100722_unit7 40 253.2 0.63 11.95 3.0 4.66 5.75 5.4 48 63 100722_unit7 41 317.0 0.17 12.28 4.3 3.72 4.66 12.5 38 78 100722_unit7 42 301.1 0.19 11.55 4.0 3.92 4.93 10.5 38 75 100722_unit7 43 288.7 0.21 11.36 3.7 4.08 5.15 9.4 38 72 100722_unit7 44 275.2 0.25 11.04 3.4 4.28 5.31 9.3 39 70 100722_unit7 45 261.6 0.37 10.53 3.1 4.51 5.55 5.9 42 67 100722_unit7 46 259.1 0.42 10.52 3.1 4.55 5.61 5.8 43 66 100722_unit7 47 254.4 0.47 10.13 3.0 4.64 5.59 7.6 45 66 100722_unit7 48 254.5 0.54 11.16 3.0 4.63 5.69 7.9 46 64 100722_unit7 49 271.0 0.29 11.50 3.6 4.32 5.29 7.8 44 70 100722_unit7 50 263.1 0.39 11.65 3.4 4.44 5.47 8.4 47 68 100722_unit7 51 314.3 0.17 13.68 4.6 3.72 4.75 10.4 39 78 100722_unit7 52 304.3 0.18 13.30 4.4 3.84 4.85 12.4 40 77 100722_unit7 53 291.3 0.20 12.61 4.0 4.02 4.99 8.6 41 74 100722_unit7 54 284.5 0.22 12.17 3.9 4.11 5.20 9.8 41 71 100722_unit7 55 277.7 0.24 12.06 3.7 4.21 5.20 7.8 42 72 100722_unit7 56 270.5 0.29 11.97 3.6 4.33 5.32 7.8 45 70 100722_unit7 57 269.2 0.30 12.10 3.6 4.34 5.38 7.6 46 69 100722_unit7 58 253.2 13.31 2.69 1.4 5.13 6.28 1.8 23 43 100722_unit7 59 273.6 6.95 3.70 1.9 4.74 5.86 2.8 24 42 100722_unit7 60 -29.6 -0.02 -1.22 0.0 -1.42 -0.18 -2.8 -51 4 Table E.28 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2 208 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100723_unit8 1 1502 50 -23.0 -6.6 0.013 64.31 0.923 42.4 58 100723_unit8 2 1500 50 -23.0 18.5 0.730 1.08 0.932 48.9 486 100723_unit8 3 2501 100 -23.0 26.4 1.645 1.07 0.982 31.6 577 100723_unit8 4 2500 100 -30.0 27.4 1.645 1.07 0.981 32.4 556 100723_unit8 5 2503 100 -16.0 24.1 1.645 1.07 0.981 33.1 608 100723_unit8 6 2498 100 -18.5 25.1 1.645 1.06 0.981 33.5 598 100723_unit8 7 2503 100 -21.0 25.8 1.645 1.07 0.981 33.9 587 100723_unit8 8 2499 100 -25.5 26.9 1.645 1.06 0.982 34.2 573 100723_unit8 9 2502 100 -28.0 27.2 1.645 1.06 0.982 34.4 565 100723_unit8 10 2501 100 -28.0 24.2 1.494 1.20 0.981 34.3 543 100723_unit8 11 2502 100 -42.0 25.3 1.494 1.19 0.981 34.4 513 100723_unit8 12 2501 100 -21.0 22.2 1.494 1.19 0.981 34.6 573 100723_unit8 13 2500 100 -23.5 22.9 1.494 1.19 0.982 34.7 564 100723_unit8 14 2500 100 -26.0 23.6 1.494 1.19 0.982 34.8 555 100723_unit8 15 2500 100 -31.0 24.7 1.494 1.19 0.981 34.9 537 100723_unit8 16 2498 100 -33.5 25.0 1.494 1.19 0.980 34.9 531 100723_unit8 17 2499 100 -36.0 25.2 1.494 1.19 0.977 35.0 525 100723_unit8 18 2499 100 -39.0 25.3 1.494 1.19 0.978 35.1 519 100723_unit8 19 2499 100 -39.0 22.8 1.380 1.31 0.977 34.8 506 100723_unit8 20 2499 100 -60.0 23.0 1.380 1.30 0.978 34.9 480 100723_unit8 21 2500 100 -23.0 18.8 1.380 1.31 0.977 35.0 565 100723_unit8 22 2499 100 -26.0 20.0 1.380 1.31 0.977 35.2 553 100723_unit8 23 2499 100 -29.0 20.7 1.380 1.31 0.977 35.2 540 100723_unit8 24 2500 100 -32.0 21.3 1.380 1.31 0.977 35.2 530 100723_unit8 25 2500 100 -35.0 22.1 1.380 1.31 0.978 35.2 517 100723_unit8 26 2500 100 -42.0 23.0 1.380 1.31 0.977 35.2 499 100723_unit8 27 2499 100 -46.0 23.2 1.380 1.31 0.977 35.2 493 100723_unit8 28 2499 100 -49.0 23.3 1.380 1.31 0.977 35.1 488 100723_unit8 29 2499 100 -53.0 23.2 1.380 1.30 0.977 35.1 484 100723_unit8 30 2499 100 -57.0 23.1 1.380 1.30 0.977 35.1 481 Table E.29 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 209 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100723_unit8 1 -13.6 -0.01 -0.01 0.0 -1.84 -0.28 -1.4 -44 8 100723_unit8 2 251.5 11.31 3.33 1.4 5.16 6.35 2.2 23 41 100723_unit8 3 238.3 9.37 1.79 1.4 7.36 8.49 2.5 24 49 100723_unit8 4 229.5 15.99 1.40 1.1 7.65 8.87 1.8 24 50 100723_unit8 5 260.1 5.27 2.35 1.7 6.74 7.86 3.8 24 50 100723_unit8 6 250.3 6.69 2.11 1.5 7.02 8.10 3.4 24 49 100723_unit8 7 243.1 8.29 1.87 1.4 7.21 8.33 3.2 24 49 100723_unit8 8 233.6 12.29 1.61 1.3 7.52 8.65 2.0 24 49 100723_unit8 9 230.6 14.42 1.52 1.2 7.61 8.75 1.7 24 48 100723_unit8 10 236.1 4.86 2.50 1.6 6.75 7.87 3.2 27 52 100723_unit8 11 225.5 16.74 1.70 1.2 7.06 8.30 1.3 29 51 100723_unit8 12 257.2 2.10 3.05 2.0 6.20 7.23 4.7 27 55 100723_unit8 13 249.1 2.75 2.94 1.8 6.40 7.48 3.9 27 53 100723_unit8 14 242.3 3.62 2.68 1.7 6.58 7.63 4.1 27 53 100723_unit8 15 231.3 7.01 2.28 1.7 6.89 8.00 3.2 28 51 100723_unit8 16 228.3 9.08 2.08 1.5 6.99 8.12 2.0 27 50 100723_unit8 17 226.4 11.05 1.95 1.4 7.04 8.17 2.2 28 50 100723_unit8 18 225.9 14.20 1.79 1.2 7.06 8.24 1.7 28 49 100723_unit8 19 231.2 3.45 3.87 1.9 6.37 7.46 3.0 33 55 100723_unit8 20 229.6 17.59 2.21 1.4 6.42 7.63 1.5 41 54 100723_unit8 21 281.1 0.62 4.47 2.4 5.24 6.24 7.9 31 64 100723_unit8 22 263.9 0.84 4.35 2.2 5.58 6.69 5.8 30 60 100723_unit8 23 254.6 1.09 4.46 2.2 5.79 6.83 5.3 31 61 100723_unit8 24 247.0 1.46 4.40 2.1 5.96 7.05 3.8 32 58 100723_unit8 25 238.6 2.10 4.35 2.0 6.17 7.24 3.8 33 56 100723_unit8 26 229.5 4.93 3.65 1.8 6.42 7.52 2.7 34 54 100723_unit8 27 227.4 6.90 3.24 1.7 6.48 7.58 2.3 35 54 100723_unit8 28 226.8 8.96 2.96 1.6 6.50 7.65 1.8 36 53 100723_unit8 29 227.7 11.91 2.66 1.5 6.47 7.66 1.7 37 53 100723_unit8 30 228.8 16.11 2.30 1.5 6.44 7.62 1.6 38 54 Table E.30 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 210 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100723_unit8 31 2499 100 -46.0 19.8 1.285 1.43 0.976 34.9 495 100723_unit8 32 2499 100 -53.0 20.4 1.285 1.43 0.976 34.9 484 100723_unit8 33 2499 100 -29.0 16.3 1.285 1.42 0.976 35.2 547 100723_unit8 34 2499 100 -31.5 16.9 1.285 1.42 0.977 35.3 539 100723_unit8 35 2499 100 -33.5 17.6 1.285 1.42 0.977 35.4 531 100723_unit8 36 2497 100 -36.0 18.2 1.285 1.42 0.976 35.4 523 100723_unit8 37 2498 100 -38.5 18.8 1.285 1.42 0.976 35.5 513 100723_unit8 38 2498 100 -41.0 19.3 1.285 1.42 0.976 35.5 507 100723_unit8 39 2498 100 -43.5 19.7 1.285 1.42 0.976 35.4 500 100723_unit8 40 2498 100 -48.5 20.2 1.285 1.42 0.976 35.5 490 100723_unit8 41 2501 100 -51.0 20.3 1.285 1.42 0.976 35.5 486 100723_unit8 42 2500 100 -38.0 16.4 1.250 1.47 0.976 35.6 523 100723_unit8 43 2500 100 -44.0 17.6 1.250 1.47 0.976 35.6 507 100723_unit8 44 2498 100 -34.0 15.7 1.250 1.47 0.976 35.7 534 100723_unit8 45 2498 100 -36.0 16.1 1.250 1.47 0.976 35.8 528 100723_unit8 46 2498 100 -41.0 17.3 1.250 1.47 0.976 35.8 514 100723_unit8 47 2498 100 -39.0 21.2 1.330 1.37 0.977 35.9 504 100723_unit8 48 2498 100 -56.0 22.3 1.330 1.36 0.976 35.8 477 100723_unit8 49 2498 100 -24.0 17.1 1.330 1.36 0.976 36.1 565 100723_unit8 50 2498 100 -32.0 19.8 1.330 1.36 0.976 36.2 530 100723_unit8 51 2498 100 -47.5 21.9 1.330 1.36 0.976 36.1 489 100723_unit8 52 2498 100 -47.0 24.2 1.435 1.24 0.976 36.2 498 100723_unit8 53 2498 100 -22.0 20.8 1.435 1.24 0.976 36.4 567 100723_unit8 54 2498 100 -29.0 22.8 1.435 1.24 0.976 36.5 541 100723_unit8 55 2498 100 -35.0 23.8 1.435 1.24 0.976 36.5 522 100723_unit8 56 2498 100 -41.0 24.2 1.435 1.24 0.977 36.4 507 100723_unit8 57 2499 100 -23.0 26.3 1.645 1.05 0.977 36.9 584 100723_unit8 58 1500 50 -23.0 18.2 0.730 1.11 0.930 55.1 486 100723_unit8 59 1499 50 -15.0 16.8 0.730 1.11 0.930 54.9 507 100723_unit8 60 1499 50 -15.0 -5.1 0.022 37.34 0.928 54.5 102 Table E.31 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1 211 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100723_unit8 31 248.4 0.89 7.53 2.7 5.53 6.63 5.8 43 64 100723_unit8 32 241.1 1.50 7.73 2.6 5.69 6.80 5.8 47 61 100723_unit8 33 301.4 0.29 8.26 3.3 4.55 5.51 12.2 36 75 100723_unit8 34 291.7 0.32 8.71 3.3 4.71 5.77 13.1 37 73 100723_unit8 35 280.0 0.37 8.29 3.1 4.90 5.95 9.0 38 71 100723_unit8 36 270.7 0.44 7.79 3.0 5.07 6.14 9.1 38 69 100723_unit8 37 261.3 0.55 7.93 2.8 5.26 6.37 6.1 39 65 100723_unit8 38 255.4 0.67 7.37 2.7 5.38 6.46 7.0 40 65 100723_unit8 39 250.1 0.81 7.29 2.7 5.49 6.60 6.3 41 64 100723_unit8 40 243.5 1.20 7.14 2.6 5.64 6.66 11.7 42 63 100723_unit8 41 241.8 1.42 7.38 2.6 5.67 6.75 11.3 45 60 100723_unit8 42 292.0 0.28 11.56 3.9 4.57 5.67 12.6 41 75 100723_unit8 43 271.2 0.39 10.59 3.5 4.92 6.01 11.2 44 71 100723_unit8 44 305.0 0.25 11.61 4.1 4.38 5.42 12.9 40 77 100723_unit8 45 296.2 0.27 11.39 3.9 4.51 5.59 13.4 41 75 100723_unit8 46 276.0 0.35 10.22 3.5 4.84 5.87 10.7 43 72 100723_unit8 47 239.8 1.52 5.58 2.3 5.92 7.01 3.9 36 59 100723_unit8 48 228.0 6.94 3.92 1.9 6.23 7.35 2.7 42 57 100723_unit8 49 297.0 0.40 5.73 2.8 4.78 5.76 9.5 33 70 100723_unit8 50 257.2 0.74 5.58 2.4 5.52 6.50 7.3 34 64 100723_unit8 51 232.2 3.28 4.89 2.1 6.12 7.24 3.5 38 57 100723_unit8 52 226.9 16.92 1.99 1.3 6.76 7.95 1.2 32 54 100723_unit8 53 264.5 1.34 3.55 2.1 5.80 6.75 7.1 29 59 100723_unit8 54 241.2 2.87 3.28 2.0 6.36 7.40 4.0 29 55 100723_unit8 55 230.9 5.88 2.81 1.7 6.64 7.75 2.7 29 53 100723_unit8 56 227.1 10.40 2.43 1.5 6.75 7.90 1.7 30 53 100723_unit8 57 239.0 10.55 1.79 1.5 7.35 8.42 2.9 24 49 100723_unit8 58 255.3 11.45 3.22 1.7 5.09 6.28 2.0 24 43 100723_unit8 59 277.4 5.78 4.38 2.2 4.68 5.87 3.5 24 43 100723_unit8 60 -29.6 -0.03 -0.63 0.0 -1.42 -0.17 -3.0 -51 2 Table E.32 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2 212 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100726_unit9 1 1500 50 -23.0 -6.6 0.014 61.79 0.908 44.5 59 100726_unit9 2 1500 50 -23.0 18.3 0.730 1.09 0.917 52.4 488 100726_unit9 3 1500 100 -16.0 50.3 1.798 1.15 1.757 34.3 499 100726_unit9 4 1503 100 -17.0 50.5 1.798 1.16 1.751 34.4 495 100726_unit9 5 1501 100 -14.0 48.7 1.798 1.16 1.752 34.7 508 100726_unit9 6 1503 100 -12.0 47.2 1.798 1.16 1.747 35.0 519 100726_unit9 7 1502 100 -19.0 48.1 1.699 1.23 1.740 35.2 483 100726_unit9 8 1504 100 -25.0 50.5 1.699 1.23 1.748 35.3 464 100726_unit9 9 1504 100 -23.0 49.9 1.699 1.23 1.742 35.3 469 100726_unit9 10 1503 100 -21.0 49.3 1.699 1.23 1.745 35.5 475 100726_unit9 11 1502 100 -17.0 47.0 1.699 1.23 1.738 35.7 492 100726_unit9 12 1507 100 -15.0 45.2 1.699 1.23 1.737 35.8 501 100726_unit9 13 1503 100 -13.0 43.8 1.699 1.23 1.734 36.1 512 100726_unit9 14 1491 100 -33.0 49.6 1.599 1.30 1.755 36.1 435 100726_unit9 15 1501 100 -31.0 48.8 1.599 1.31 1.745 36.0 440 100726_unit9 16 1505 100 -29.0 48.1 1.599 1.30 1.735 35.9 445 100726_unit9 17 1505 100 -27.0 47.4 1.599 1.30 1.730 35.9 452 100726_unit9 18 1505 100 -25.0 46.7 1.599 1.30 1.729 36.0 458 100726_unit9 19 1509 100 -23.0 45.5 1.599 1.30 1.726 36.0 466 100726_unit9 20 1490 100 -21.0 45.4 1.599 1.30 1.738 36.3 470 100726_unit9 21 1496 100 -19.0 43.8 1.599 1.30 1.732 36.3 480 100726_unit9 22 1497 100 -44.0 46.9 1.499 1.39 1.740 36.3 411 100726_unit9 23 1498 100 -42.0 46.8 1.499 1.39 1.740 36.2 414 100726_unit9 24 1498 100 -40.0 46.7 1.499 1.39 1.737 36.1 417 100726_unit9 25 1498 100 -38.0 46.2 1.499 1.39 1.730 36.0 420 100726_unit9 26 1498 100 -36.0 46.0 1.499 1.39 1.733 36.1 424 100726_unit9 27 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN 100726_unit9 28 1498 100 -32.0 45.0 1.499 1.38 1.723 36.0 433 100726_unit9 29 1493 100 -30.0 44.2 1.499 1.39 1.731 36.1 439 100726_unit9 30 1494 100 -28.0 43.4 1.498 1.39 1.722 36.0 445 Table E.33 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 213 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100726_unit9 1 -14.3 0.00 -0.03 0.0 -1.83 -0.28 -1.5 -54 23 100726_unit9 2 253.8 13.45 3.45 1.5 5.11 6.28 1.8 24 42 100726_unit9 3 227.5 10.97 3.79 1.1 14.06 14.39 3.7 23 45 100726_unit9 4 226.4 11.53 4.03 1.1 14.09 14.51 4.0 23 44 100726_unit9 5 234.8 9.18 4.13 1.3 13.61 13.96 4.0 23 46 100726_unit9 6 242.1 7.82 4.15 1.4 13.18 13.56 5.0 23 46 100726_unit9 7 224.8 6.50 4.38 1.3 13.42 13.71 4.3 24 47 100726_unit9 8 213.9 11.13 3.88 1.1 14.09 14.54 2.9 25 46 100726_unit9 9 216.3 9.76 4.06 1.2 13.93 14.29 3.3 24 46 100726_unit9 10 219.3 8.29 4.22 1.2 13.76 14.06 3.8 24 47 100726_unit9 11 229.7 5.50 4.42 1.3 13.14 13.40 4.4 24 47 100726_unit9 12 238.1 4.06 4.62 1.4 12.63 12.82 5.8 25 49 100726_unit9 13 246.3 3.67 4.66 1.5 12.24 12.36 5.2 25 51 100726_unit9 14 206.8 11.58 3.75 1.3 13.84 14.32 2.3 27 49 100726_unit9 15 208.7 9.33 4.23 1.4 13.61 14.00 2.2 27 48 100726_unit9 16 210.9 7.48 4.47 1.4 13.44 13.77 3.1 27 50 100726_unit9 17 214.2 5.92 4.64 1.4 13.24 13.53 3.4 27 50 100726_unit9 18 217.4 4.77 4.75 1.4 13.03 13.28 3.7 27 51 100726_unit9 19 222.7 3.58 4.94 1.5 12.70 12.77 4.8 27 52 100726_unit9 20 225.5 3.30 5.00 1.5 12.69 12.94 4.3 26 50 100726_unit9 21 233.0 2.40 5.07 1.5 12.24 12.34 5.5 26 54 100726_unit9 22 203.8 11.59 4.34 1.5 13.10 13.61 1.6 31 53 100726_unit9 23 204.3 9.49 4.69 1.6 13.07 13.50 2.2 32 53 100726_unit9 24 204.9 7.88 4.94 1.6 13.03 13.46 2.2 31 52 100726_unit9 25 206.7 6.16 5.39 1.7 12.91 13.24 3.0 32 53 100726_unit9 26 208.0 5.23 5.47 1.8 12.84 13.22 2.9 30 53 100726_unit9 27 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN 13.03 3.1 NaN 53 100726_unit9 28 212.6 3.18 6.04 1.8 12.56 12.72 4.2 31 56 100726_unit9 29 217.0 2.33 6.17 1.8 12.34 12.79 4.1 29 53 100726_unit9 30 220.8 1.83 6.21 1.8 12.12 12.57 5.5 29 54 Table E.34 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 214 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100726_unit9 31 1494 100 -26.0 42.6 1.498 1.38 1.723 36.3 452 100726_unit9 32 1494 100 -24.0 41.4 1.498 1.39 1.725 36.3 460 100726_unit9 33 1499 100 -51.0 45.3 1.449 1.43 1.735 36.3 401 100726_unit9 34 1499 100 -49.0 45.3 1.449 1.42 1.733 36.1 402 100726_unit9 35 1499 100 -47.0 45.2 1.449 1.43 1.736 36.0 404 100726_unit9 36 1499 100 -45.0 45.0 1.449 1.43 1.726 35.9 407 100726_unit9 37 1498 100 -43.0 44.8 1.449 1.42 1.729 35.8 410 100726_unit9 38 1496 100 -41.0 44.4 1.449 1.42 1.726 35.8 412 100726_unit9 39 1495 100 -39.0 44.1 1.449 1.43 1.730 35.8 417 100726_unit9 40 1495 100 -37.0 43.6 1.449 1.42 1.724 35.7 422 100726_unit9 41 1494 100 -35.0 43.0 1.449 1.42 1.722 35.6 426 100726_unit9 42 1494 100 -33.0 42.0 1.449 1.43 1.728 35.6 433 100726_unit9 43 1500 50 -23.0 18.3 0.730 1.10 0.917 54.4 478 100726_unit9 44 1500 50 -15.0 16.8 0.730 1.10 0.917 54.9 506 100726_unit9 45 1499 50 -15.0 -5.0 0.024 34.45 0.915 54.4 96 Table E.35 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/SC, Points 31 ? 45: Part 1 215 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100726_unit9 31 225.1 1.43 6.22 1.8 11.89 12.45 4.8 28 53 100726_unit9 32 231.8 1.14 6.32 1.8 11.55 11.60 7.2 30 59 100726_unit9 33 203.9 11.71 4.54 1.6 12.65 13.15 1.6 36 56 100726_unit9 34 204.0 9.58 4.92 1.7 12.65 13.05 2.6 36 57 100726_unit9 35 204.3 8.02 5.30 1.8 12.63 13.04 2.6 35 56 100726_unit9 36 205.2 6.31 5.74 1.8 12.57 13.05 2.0 33 54 100726_unit9 37 206.4 4.96 6.14 1.9 12.50 12.73 3.5 36 57 100726_unit9 38 208.3 4.04 6.50 2.0 12.41 12.70 3.4 34 57 100726_unit9 39 210.0 3.19 6.68 2.0 12.32 12.58 3.8 34 57 100726_unit9 40 212.6 2.34 6.88 2.0 12.17 12.38 4.3 34 58 100726_unit9 41 215.5 1.94 6.98 2.0 12.00 12.35 4.0 33 57 100726_unit9 42 220.4 1.37 7.19 2.1 11.74 11.87 5.5 33 61 100726_unit9 43 254.4 13.16 3.50 1.7 5.11 6.25 1.8 24 43 100726_unit9 44 276.5 6.89 4.63 2.1 4.70 5.83 3.2 24 42 100726_unit9 45 -32.3 -0.02 -1.05 0.0 -1.40 -0.17 -2.7 -56 0 Table E.36 ? Performance Data, SJB, 1500/SC, Points 31 ? 45: Part 2 216 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100727_unit10 1 1501 50 -23.0 -5.6 0.017 50.18 0.909 45.5 62 100727_unit10 2 1500 50 -23.0 18.5 0.730 1.08 0.918 50.3 484 100727_unit10 3 2002 100 -16.0 42.5 2.146 1.18 1.741 34.7 556 100727_unit10 4 2004 100 -18.0 43.8 2.146 1.18 1.747 35.4 546 100727_unit10 5 1993 100 -20.0 45.3 2.146 1.18 1.758 36.2 536 100727_unit10 6 2000 100 -22.0 46.1 2.146 1.18 1.759 36.8 529 100727_unit10 7 2002 100 -24.0 47.0 2.146 1.18 1.760 37.2 522 100727_unit10 8 2005 100 -31.0 45.6 2.013 1.26 1.751 37.5 495 100727_unit10 9 1998 100 -33.0 46.1 2.013 1.26 1.758 37.6 488 100727_unit10 10 2000 100 -29.0 45.2 2.013 1.26 1.753 37.8 499 100727_unit10 11 2003 100 -27.0 44.5 2.013 1.26 1.747 37.9 504 100727_unit10 12 1999 100 -25.0 43.7 2.013 1.26 1.749 38.2 509 100727_unit10 13 1996 100 -23.0 42.8 2.013 1.26 1.751 38.4 517 100727_unit10 14 1995 100 -21.0 41.8 2.013 1.26 1.746 38.6 523 100727_unit10 15 1992 100 -19.0 40.5 2.013 1.26 1.745 38.8 532 100727_unit10 16 1998 100 -41.0 43.7 1.880 1.34 1.751 38.9 463 100727_unit10 17 1997 100 -39.0 43.4 1.880 1.34 1.748 38.9 466 100727_unit10 18 1996 100 -37.0 43.2 1.880 1.34 1.745 38.9 470 100727_unit10 19 1996 100 -35.0 42.7 1.880 1.35 1.746 38.9 475 100727_unit10 20 1996 100 -33.0 42.0 1.880 1.34 1.741 39.0 480 100727_unit10 21 1998 100 -31.0 41.5 1.880 1.34 1.738 39.1 484 100727_unit10 22 2000 100 -29.0 40.6 1.880 1.34 1.735 39.1 493 100727_unit10 23 2000 100 -27.0 39.8 1.880 1.34 1.733 39.2 498 100727_unit10 24 2000 100 -56.0 40.7 1.747 1.44 1.742 39.2 436 100727_unit10 25 2001 100 -54.0 40.6 1.747 1.44 1.742 39.0 436 100727_unit10 26 2002 100 -52.0 40.4 1.748 1.44 1.736 39.0 438 100727_unit10 27 2002 100 -50.0 40.5 1.748 1.44 1.734 39.0 442 100727_unit10 28 2002 100 -48.0 40.2 1.748 1.44 1.731 38.9 445 100727_unit10 29 2003 100 -46.0 39.7 1.748 1.44 1.730 39.0 447 100727_unit10 30 2003 100 -44.0 39.5 1.748 1.44 1.729 38.9 452 Table E.37 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 217 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100727_unit10 1 -20.2 -0.01 -0.57 0.0 -1.57 -0.17 -2.5 -47 11 100727_unit10 2 251.1 14.49 2.96 1.5 5.17 6.35 1.4 22 42 100727_unit10 3 240.8 5.53 3.82 1.5 11.87 12.29 4.9 25 51 100727_unit10 4 233.5 6.52 3.90 1.4 12.23 12.72 4.7 25 49 100727_unit10 5 226.9 8.36 3.76 1.2 12.66 13.15 4.4 25 48 100727_unit10 6 222.4 9.63 4.00 1.2 12.87 13.42 3.9 25 48 100727_unit10 7 218.0 11.79 3.50 1.1 13.12 13.48 3.3 26 48 100727_unit10 8 210.4 10.21 3.50 1.2 12.73 13.25 3.0 28 50 100727_unit10 9 208.8 11.99 3.59 1.2 12.87 13.43 2.4 28 50 100727_unit10 10 212.8 8.44 3.79 1.3 12.62 13.04 3.4 28 51 100727_unit10 11 215.8 7.06 3.96 1.3 12.42 12.81 4.0 28 51 100727_unit10 12 220.4 5.68 4.63 1.4 12.19 12.72 3.9 26 49 100727_unit10 13 224.9 4.54 4.78 1.4 11.96 12.45 4.3 27 51 100727_unit10 14 230.8 3.84 4.94 1.4 11.67 12.02 5.5 27 52 100727_unit10 15 238.4 2.97 5.10 1.5 11.31 11.71 5.3 26 53 100727_unit10 16 205.6 9.89 4.17 1.4 12.21 12.71 2.3 32 54 100727_unit10 17 207.3 8.52 4.60 1.5 12.11 12.57 3.0 32 54 100727_unit10 18 208.3 7.11 4.76 1.5 12.07 12.52 3.3 31 54 100727_unit10 19 210.8 5.60 4.81 1.6 11.92 12.32 3.9 32 55 100727_unit10 20 214.0 4.20 5.21 1.6 11.74 12.18 3.5 31 55 100727_unit10 21 216.8 3.67 5.73 1.6 11.58 11.91 4.5 31 56 100727_unit10 22 221.5 2.76 5.50 1.7 11.33 11.75 5.1 30 56 100727_unit10 23 225.8 2.16 5.91 1.6 11.11 11.55 5.2 30 55 100727_unit10 24 205.2 9.70 5.11 1.7 11.36 11.95 2.1 41 58 100727_unit10 25 205.5 8.03 5.68 1.8 11.34 11.94 2.6 40 58 100727_unit10 26 206.3 6.87 6.02 1.8 11.29 11.81 2.7 40 58 100727_unit10 27 205.9 6.09 5.70 1.8 11.31 11.86 2.3 38 58 100727_unit10 28 207.4 4.90 6.14 1.9 11.23 11.61 3.5 39 60 100727_unit10 29 209.8 3.87 6.95 1.9 11.10 11.54 4.1 38 59 100727_unit10 30 210.9 3.09 6.85 2.0 11.04 11.48 4.3 37 59 Table E.38 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 218 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100727_unit10 31 2006 100 -42.0 38.9 1.748 1.44 1.723 38.9 456 100727_unit10 32 1997 100 -40.0 38.9 1.748 1.44 1.728 39.0 459 100727_unit10 33 1999 100 -38.0 38.0 1.748 1.44 1.722 39.1 465 100727_unit10 34 1996 100 -36.0 37.5 1.748 1.44 1.719 39.2 471 100727_unit10 35 1998 100 -47.0 37.2 1.681 1.50 1.722 39.3 448 100727_unit10 36 2005 100 -68.0 38.9 1.681 1.50 1.732 39.5 424 100727_unit10 37 2001 100 -65.0 39.0 1.681 1.50 1.737 39.4 425 100727_unit10 38 1999 100 -62.0 38.9 1.681 1.50 1.731 39.4 426 100727_unit10 39 1992 100 -59.0 39.0 1.681 1.50 1.732 39.4 428 100727_unit10 40 2000 100 -56.0 38.6 1.681 1.50 1.726 39.5 433 100727_unit10 41 1999 100 -53.0 38.5 1.681 1.50 1.726 39.6 436 100727_unit10 42 1999 100 -50.0 38.0 1.681 1.50 1.720 39.6 440 100727_unit10 43 1998 100 -44.0 36.8 1.681 1.50 1.718 39.7 454 100727_unit10 44 1995 100 -41.0 36.2 1.681 1.50 1.715 39.7 460 100727_unit10 45 1498 50 -23.0 18.4 0.730 1.09 0.922 58.8 480 100727_unit10 46 1498 50 -15.0 17.2 0.730 1.09 0.923 58.7 504 100727_unit10 47 1497 50 -15.0 -4.9 0.022 37.14 0.919 58.6 111 Table E.39 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/SC, Points 31 ? 47: Part 1 219 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100727_unit10 31 214.0 2.26 7.50 2.0 10.86 11.12 5.4 38 62 100727_unit10 32 215.2 2.18 7.38 2.0 10.86 11.16 5.3 36 61 100727_unit10 33 219.9 1.61 7.67 2.0 10.61 11.15 4.8 35 60 100727_unit10 34 223.2 1.37 7.81 2.0 10.47 10.69 6.1 36 65 100727_unit10 35 216.3 1.59 8.62 2.3 10.38 10.50 6.9 42 68 100727_unit10 36 205.9 8.32 5.86 2.0 10.86 11.34 3.2 52 63 100727_unit10 37 205.7 7.52 5.96 2.0 10.90 11.45 2.3 48 61 100727_unit10 38 206.8 6.66 6.75 2.0 10.85 11.37 2.9 48 61 100727_unit10 39 206.8 5.47 6.96 2.1 10.88 11.31 3.6 46 62 100727_unit10 40 207.8 3.94 7.26 2.2 10.79 11.30 3.5 44 60 100727_unit10 41 208.9 3.40 7.37 2.2 10.74 11.12 3.8 44 62 100727_unit10 42 211.7 2.38 7.99 2.2 10.60 10.91 5.4 43 64 100727_unit10 43 218.4 1.32 8.36 2.4 10.28 10.39 6.6 41 68 100727_unit10 44 222.3 1.03 8.58 2.4 10.11 10.24 7.1 40 68 100727_unit10 45 252.8 14.89 3.18 1.6 5.14 6.29 1.6 23 42 100727_unit10 46 270.0 8.25 4.29 2.0 4.82 5.94 2.7 23 41 100727_unit10 47 -30.2 -0.04 -1.46 0.0 -1.38 -0.17 -2.6 -66 -2 Table E.40 ? Performance Data, SJB, 2000/SC, Points 31 ? 47: Part 2 220 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100802_unit11 1 1500 50 -23.0 -5.8 0.018 47.96 0.915 43.2 55 100802_unit11 2 1499 50 -23.0 17.9 0.729 1.06 0.926 48.3 486 100802_unit11 3 1501 100 -23.0 27.0 0.989 1.07 0.987 32.3 488 100802_unit11 4 1503 100 -22.0 26.8 0.989 1.07 0.987 32.9 491 100802_unit11 5 1502 100 -20.0 26.3 0.989 1.07 0.987 33.2 496 100802_unit11 6 1502 100 -18.0 25.6 0.989 1.08 0.987 33.5 500 100802_unit11 7 1502 100 -16.0 25.2 0.989 1.08 0.987 33.7 506 100802_unit11 8 1502 100 -14.0 24.5 0.989 1.08 0.988 34.2 515 100802_unit11 9 1503 100 -12.0 23.7 0.989 1.09 0.988 34.4 524 100802_unit11 10 1499 100 -23.0 24.0 0.909 1.19 0.987 34.5 475 100802_unit11 11 1499 100 -34.0 25.1 0.909 1.18 0.987 34.6 446 100802_unit11 12 1500 100 -16.0 22.1 0.909 1.20 0.987 34.5 497 100802_unit11 13 1499 100 -18.0 22.8 0.909 1.20 0.987 34.7 488 100802_unit11 14 1499 100 -20.0 23.3 0.909 1.20 0.986 34.8 482 100802_unit11 15 1499 100 -26.0 24.9 0.909 1.19 0.988 35.0 467 100802_unit11 16 1499 100 -28.0 24.9 0.909 1.19 0.988 35.1 460 100802_unit11 17 1500 100 -30.0 25.0 0.909 1.19 0.987 35.1 455 100802_unit11 18 1500 100 -32.0 25.2 0.909 1.19 0.986 35.3 451 100802_unit11 19 1501 100 -32.0 22.9 0.845 1.30 0.987 35.1 443 100802_unit11 20 1501 100 -48.0 23.1 0.845 1.28 0.988 35.1 420 100802_unit11 21 1501 100 -21.0 20.6 0.845 1.31 0.986 35.0 474 100802_unit11 22 1500 100 -24.0 21.5 0.845 1.31 0.986 35.1 464 100802_unit11 23 1500 100 -27.0 22.1 0.845 1.30 0.987 35.1 456 100802_unit11 24 1500 100 -30.0 22.6 0.845 1.30 0.987 35.1 448 100802_unit11 25 1500 100 -35.0 23.2 0.845 1.30 0.986 35.1 437 100802_unit11 26 1500 100 -38.0 23.4 0.845 1.29 0.987 35.2 431 100802_unit11 27 1501 100 -42.0 23.4 0.845 1.29 0.986 35.3 426 100802_unit11 28 1501 100 -45.0 23.2 0.845 1.29 0.986 35.3 422 100802_unit11 29 1501 100 -38.0 20.2 0.780 1.43 0.986 35.0 431 100802_unit11 30 1501 100 -68.0 20.6 0.780 1.41 0.987 35.1 398 100802_unit11 31 1501 100 -22.0 15.7 0.780 1.44 0.986 35.0 484 100802_unit11 32 1501 100 -26.0 17.3 0.780 1.44 0.986 35.0 470 Table E.41 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/NA, Points 1 ? 32: Part 1 221 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100802_unit11 1 -20.1 -0.59 -0.02 -30.4 -1.62 -0.18 -6.7 -48 14 100802_unit11 2 258.8 13.00 4.59 1.4 5.01 6.31 1.7 23 42 100802_unit11 3 232.7 16.67 4.08 1.5 7.55 8.62 2.1 21 41 100802_unit11 4 234.4 15.80 4.37 1.5 7.49 8.55 1.9 22 42 100802_unit11 5 239.1 13.55 4.86 1.4 7.34 8.36 2.5 22 42 100802_unit11 6 245.2 11.07 5.31 1.5 7.16 8.26 2.8 22 42 100802_unit11 7 249.9 9.57 5.22 1.4 7.02 8.08 3.4 22 42 100802_unit11 8 256.5 8.22 5.17 1.4 6.84 7.86 4.0 22 43 100802_unit11 9 265.3 7.00 5.35 1.5 6.61 7.61 4.9 22 44 100802_unit11 10 240.9 6.10 5.57 1.5 6.71 7.79 3.4 24 46 100802_unit11 11 230.6 17.64 4.36 1.2 7.01 8.13 1.3 25 45 100802_unit11 12 261.8 2.63 5.68 2.0 6.17 7.16 5.3 24 48 100802_unit11 13 254.5 3.31 6.54 2.1 6.35 7.32 4.1 24 47 100802_unit11 14 249.0 3.97 6.65 2.1 6.49 7.59 3.7 24 46 100802_unit11 15 232.3 8.79 4.54 1.5 6.96 8.02 2.6 24 45 100802_unit11 16 232.9 10.52 5.23 1.5 6.94 8.02 2.1 24 45 100802_unit11 17 231.2 13.04 4.93 1.4 6.99 8.07 2.0 24 45 100802_unit11 18 229.9 15.31 4.61 1.3 7.03 8.13 1.3 25 45 100802_unit11 19 234.8 4.36 7.01 1.8 6.40 7.41 3.1 28 49 100802_unit11 20 232.9 19.29 4.68 1.5 6.45 7.58 1.1 31 49 100802_unit11 21 261.4 1.09 7.77 2.1 5.74 6.68 5.7 27 54 100802_unit11 22 250.2 1.54 7.84 2.0 6.00 6.93 4.7 27 53 100802_unit11 23 243.8 2.20 7.57 2.0 6.16 7.15 4.5 28 51 100802_unit11 24 237.5 3.25 7.31 1.9 6.32 7.32 3.6 28 50 100802_unit11 25 231.9 6.23 6.62 1.8 6.48 7.53 1.9 28 49 100802_unit11 26 230.1 8.78 6.08 1.7 6.53 7.58 1.9 29 48 100802_unit11 27 229.8 12.97 5.46 1.6 6.53 7.61 1.5 29 49 100802_unit11 28 231.5 17.53 4.73 1.5 6.48 7.59 1.2 30 49 100802_unit11 29 246.0 1.10 10.88 2.6 5.63 6.63 4.8 35 58 100802_unit11 30 241.1 19.50 5.60 1.9 5.75 6.86 2.1 44 55 100802_unit11 31 316.8 0.27 12.44 3.6 4.37 5.37 10.1 32 71 100802_unit11 32 287.1 0.32 11.92 3.2 4.83 5.85 9.2 33 66 Table E.42 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/NA, Points 1 ? 32: Part 2 222 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100802_unit11 33 1501 100 -30.0 18.4 0.780 1.44 0.986 35.0 456 100802_unit11 34 1501 100 -34.0 19.5 0.780 1.44 0.986 35.0 442 100802_unit11 35 1501 100 -42.0 20.6 0.780 1.44 0.986 35.0 424 100802_unit11 36 1501 100 -46.0 21.0 0.780 1.43 0.986 35.1 417 100802_unit11 37 1501 100 -50.0 21.3 0.780 1.43 0.985 35.2 410 100802_unit11 38 1501 100 -54.0 21.4 0.780 1.42 0.987 35.2 406 100802_unit11 39 1501 100 -59.0 21.2 0.780 1.42 0.986 35.3 403 100802_unit11 40 1501 100 -63.0 21.0 0.780 1.41 0.986 35.5 401 100802_unit11 41 1501 100 -66.0 20.7 0.780 1.41 0.986 35.6 400 100802_unit11 42 1500 100 -49.0 20.1 0.757 1.48 0.985 35.3 414 100802_unit11 43 1501 100 -68.0 20.4 0.757 1.46 0.987 35.4 397 100802_unit11 44 1500 100 -29.0 16.8 0.757 1.48 0.985 35.3 461 100802_unit11 45 1501 100 -33.0 17.6 0.757 1.48 0.985 35.4 451 100802_unit11 46 1500 100 -37.0 18.5 0.757 1.48 0.986 35.3 440 100802_unit11 47 1500 100 -41.0 19.2 0.757 1.48 0.985 35.3 429 100802_unit11 48 1500 100 -45.0 19.6 0.757 1.48 0.986 35.3 422 100802_unit11 49 1500 100 -54.0 20.4 0.757 1.47 0.985 35.4 409 100802_unit11 50 1500 100 -54.0 20.4 0.757 1.47 0.985 35.4 409 100802_unit11 51 1500 100 -58.0 20.6 0.757 1.47 0.986 35.5 405 100802_unit11 52 1501 100 -62.0 20.6 0.757 1.46 0.986 35.5 402 100802_unit11 53 1500 100 -35.0 15.8 0.734 1.53 0.986 35.4 451 100802_unit11 54 1500 100 -53.0 18.7 0.734 1.53 0.984 35.4 417 100802_unit11 55 1501 100 -48.0 18.2 0.734 1.53 0.986 35.3 422 100802_unit11 56 1500 100 -44.0 17.6 0.734 1.53 0.983 35.5 430 100802_unit11 57 1500 100 -41.0 17.0 0.734 1.53 0.982 35.4 436 100802_unit11 58 1500 100 -38.0 16.6 0.734 1.53 0.982 35.4 441 100802_unit11 59 1501 100 -32.0 15.3 0.734 1.53 0.982 35.5 456 100802_unit11 60 1501 100 -20.0 26.8 0.989 1.07 0.983 36.4 496 100802_unit11 61 1501 50 -23.0 18.0 0.729 1.08 0.925 54.2 492 100802_unit11 62 1501 50 -15.0 16.7 0.729 1.07 0.926 54.4 516 100802_unit11 63 1500 50 -15.0 -5.3 0.024 36.17 0.922 53.8 110 Table E.43 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/NA, Points 33 ? 63: Part 1 223 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100802_unit11 33 269.2 0.43 11.67 3.0 5.15 6.17 7.8 34 63 100802_unit11 34 253.9 0.66 11.29 2.8 5.46 6.37 6.4 35 62 100802_unit11 35 240.5 1.57 10.71 2.6 5.76 6.74 4.1 36 58 100802_unit11 36 236.1 2.52 10.00 2.4 5.87 6.86 3.4 38 57 100802_unit11 37 233.0 4.36 9.26 2.3 5.95 6.96 2.1 38 55 100802_unit11 38 232.3 6.72 8.20 2.2 5.96 7.01 1.7 39 55 100802_unit11 39 233.5 10.55 7.19 2.0 5.93 7.01 1.3 41 53 100802_unit11 40 236.7 15.30 6.04 1.9 5.85 6.93 1.6 41 53 100802_unit11 41 239.7 19.70 5.33 1.9 5.78 6.86 2.0 42 53 100802_unit11 42 239.3 1.62 11.52 2.7 5.62 6.63 3.8 41 58 100802_unit11 43 236.2 8.81 9.28 2.3 5.69 6.79 1.7 48 56 100802_unit11 44 287.6 0.27 13.58 3.5 4.68 5.65 9.9 35 68 100802_unit11 45 273.1 0.33 13.42 3.3 4.93 5.90 8.0 36 66 100802_unit11 46 260.7 0.47 13.05 3.1 5.16 6.11 6.7 37 64 100802_unit11 47 250.7 0.72 12.54 2.9 5.37 6.34 6.0 38 61 100802_unit11 48 245.5 1.08 12.08 2.8 5.48 6.47 4.6 39 60 100802_unit11 49 236.7 2.85 10.78 2.6 5.68 6.65 3.4 42 59 100802_unit11 50 236.0 2.94 10.57 2.6 5.70 6.71 2.7 42 57 100802_unit11 51 234.3 4.18 9.86 2.5 5.74 6.74 2.4 44 57 100802_unit11 52 234.1 6.39 8.92 2.4 5.75 6.76 1.9 46 57 100802_unit11 53 296.5 0.23 19.01 4.4 4.40 5.26 13.3 40 75 100802_unit11 54 250.2 0.80 14.98 3.3 5.22 6.23 5.4 46 63 100802_unit11 55 256.9 0.57 15.63 3.5 5.08 6.09 7.0 44 64 100802_unit11 56 265.8 0.42 16.32 3.7 4.91 5.88 8.7 42 68 100802_unit11 57 274.6 0.32 17.39 4.0 4.75 5.75 9.5 41 69 100802_unit11 58 281.4 0.27 17.73 4.1 4.64 5.58 11.4 40 71 100802_unit11 59 304.9 0.21 19.53 4.6 4.28 5.23 12.3 38 75 100802_unit11 60 235.2 15.94 3.99 1.0 7.47 8.46 1.4 20 42 100802_unit11 61 258.0 12.25 4.26 1.6 5.02 6.23 1.7 23 43 100802_unit11 62 277.9 6.81 5.60 1.8 4.66 5.83 2.8 23 43 100802_unit11 63 -29.2 -0.04 -0.36 0.0 -1.47 -0.18 -3.3 -67 0 Table E.44 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/NA, Points 33 ? 63: Part 2 224 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100803_unit12 1 1498 50 -23.0 -6.2 0.018 50.48 0.915 40.4 47 100803_unit12 2 1502 50 -23.0 18.0 0.730 1.06 0.929 48.7 488 100803_unit12 3 2001 100 -23.0 23.0 1.166 1.07 0.989 32.3 536 100803_unit12 4 2000 100 -33.0 24.0 1.166 1.06 0.989 33.6 517 100803_unit12 5 2003 100 -17.0 21.3 1.166 1.08 0.988 34.1 561 100803_unit12 6 2003 100 -20.0 22.2 1.166 1.07 0.989 34.8 550 100803_unit12 7 2000 100 -27.0 23.5 1.166 1.07 0.989 35.4 529 100803_unit12 8 2000 100 -30.0 23.7 1.166 1.06 0.989 35.8 521 100803_unit12 9 2000 100 -30.0 21.1 1.060 1.20 0.988 35.9 505 100803_unit12 10 1999 100 -46.0 21.5 1.060 1.18 0.989 36.1 478 100803_unit12 11 2000 100 -23.0 19.7 1.060 1.20 0.989 36.1 526 100803_unit12 12 2005 100 -26.0 20.4 1.060 1.20 0.989 36.2 518 100803_unit12 13 2000 100 -28.0 20.8 1.060 1.20 0.986 36.4 511 100803_unit12 14 2002 100 -34.0 21.5 1.060 1.20 0.985 36.5 496 100803_unit12 15 2001 100 -37.0 21.6 1.060 1.19 0.984 36.7 491 100803_unit12 16 2003 100 -40.0 21.7 1.060 1.19 0.985 36.8 484 100803_unit12 17 2002 100 -43.0 21.6 1.060 1.19 0.985 36.9 480 100803_unit12 18 1994 100 -43.0 19.8 0.981 1.30 0.985 36.8 469 100803_unit12 19 1999 100 -64.0 19.3 0.981 1.29 0.985 37.1 451 100803_unit12 20 2001 100 -26.0 17.3 0.981 1.32 0.985 36.9 510 100803_unit12 21 1998 100 -29.0 18.0 0.981 1.32 0.986 36.9 502 100803_unit12 22 2001 100 -33.0 18.7 0.981 1.32 0.986 37.0 489 100803_unit12 23 1999 100 -37.0 19.4 0.981 1.31 0.986 37.1 477 100803_unit12 24 1999 100 -40.0 19.7 0.981 1.31 0.986 37.1 476 100803_unit12 25 1998 100 -48.0 20.0 0.981 1.30 0.986 37.3 464 100803_unit12 26 2002 100 -52.0 19.9 0.981 1.30 0.986 37.3 458 100803_unit12 27 2003 100 -56.0 19.7 0.981 1.30 0.986 37.5 453 100803_unit12 28 2002 100 -60.0 19.5 0.981 1.29 0.985 37.6 453 100803_unit12 29 1997 100 -45.0 17.2 0.912 1.43 0.986 37.3 466 100803_unit12 30 1995 100 -57.0 17.8 0.912 1.42 0.986 37.2 452 Table E.45 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 225 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100803_unit12 1 -18.4 -0.02 -0.11 0.0 -1.72 -0.18 -2.5 -44 13 100803_unit12 2 258.2 10.88 4.14 1.6 5.02 6.28 2.0 23 43 100803_unit12 3 242.2 7.96 3.52 1.6 6.41 7.54 2.5 24 48 100803_unit12 4 232.3 16.67 2.61 1.2 6.69 7.86 1.3 25 49 100803_unit12 5 260.8 4.62 4.07 1.9 5.95 6.99 4.5 24 49 100803_unit12 6 250.3 6.27 3.72 1.7 6.20 7.24 4.1 24 49 100803_unit12 7 237.2 11.77 3.05 1.3 6.55 7.70 1.9 24 48 100803_unit12 8 235.0 14.91 2.70 1.1 6.62 7.75 1.7 24 49 100803_unit12 9 240.3 4.59 4.55 1.7 5.88 6.99 2.8 27 51 100803_unit12 10 235.4 18.65 2.85 1.1 6.01 7.22 1.1 31 52 100803_unit12 11 256.5 2.15 4.36 1.9 5.51 6.56 4.6 27 53 100803_unit12 12 247.8 2.84 4.28 1.8 5.69 6.77 3.7 26 53 100803_unit12 13 243.0 3.78 4.17 1.8 5.82 6.93 2.5 27 51 100803_unit12 14 234.8 7.41 3.75 1.5 6.01 7.09 2.3 28 51 100803_unit12 15 234.1 9.58 3.60 1.4 6.03 7.15 1.8 28 51 100803_unit12 16 233.3 12.70 3.72 1.4 6.05 7.20 1.3 29 51 100803_unit12 17 233.7 15.80 3.40 1.3 6.04 7.21 1.2 30 51 100803_unit12 18 237.0 4.38 6.21 1.9 5.54 6.65 2.6 33 54 100803_unit12 19 243.0 19.58 4.19 1.5 5.39 6.58 1.7 41 57 100803_unit12 20 270.6 0.68 7.29 2.3 4.83 5.93 5.7 30 60 100803_unit12 21 260.4 0.89 7.24 2.2 5.03 6.12 5.2 31 58 100803_unit12 22 249.8 1.34 7.49 2.2 5.24 6.30 4.8 32 57 100803_unit12 23 241.8 2.26 7.57 2.1 5.42 6.49 3.2 32 55 100803_unit12 24 238.6 3.17 6.26 2.0 5.49 6.58 2.9 33 55 100803_unit12 25 234.4 7.27 5.18 1.8 5.59 6.73 1.6 35 54 100803_unit12 26 235.1 9.84 5.11 1.8 5.56 6.70 1.5 37 54 100803_unit12 27 236.9 13.17 4.65 1.7 5.52 6.68 1.3 38 55 100803_unit12 28 239.5 17.15 3.96 1.6 5.46 6.65 1.4 39 56 100803_unit12 29 253.0 0.78 10.33 2.7 4.82 5.84 6.0 42 63 100803_unit12 30 246.0 1.60 10.57 2.6 4.96 6.04 4.4 48 62 Table E.46 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 226 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100803_unit12 31 1996 100 -28.0 13.6 0.912 1.44 0.985 37.0 512 100803_unit12 32 1996 100 -31.0 14.5 0.912 1.44 0.985 37.1 504 100803_unit12 33 2000 100 -34.0 15.3 0.912 1.44 0.985 37.3 494 100803_unit12 34 1997 100 -37.0 15.9 0.912 1.44 0.986 37.3 485 100803_unit12 35 1999 100 -40.0 16.4 0.912 1.44 0.985 37.4 477 100803_unit12 36 1997 100 -42.0 16.8 0.912 1.43 0.985 37.3 471 100803_unit12 37 1996 100 -48.0 17.4 0.912 1.43 0.985 37.4 460 100803_unit12 38 1996 100 -51.0 17.7 0.912 1.43 0.985 37.4 455 100803_unit12 39 1996 100 -54.0 17.8 0.912 1.43 0.985 37.5 455 100803_unit12 40 1997 100 -42.0 14.8 0.884 1.49 0.984 37.4 478 100803_unit12 41 1997 100 -53.0 15.8 0.884 1.49 0.985 37.4 463 100803_unit12 42 1996 100 -30.0 12.0 0.884 1.50 0.985 37.4 512 100803_unit12 43 1996 100 -32.5 12.6 0.884 1.50 0.984 37.5 507 100803_unit12 44 1996 100 -35.0 13.3 0.884 1.50 0.985 37.5 499 100803_unit12 45 1997 100 -37.0 13.7 0.884 1.50 0.985 37.5 494 100803_unit12 46 2008 100 -39.0 12.9 0.884 1.51 0.984 37.5 486 100803_unit12 47 2005 100 -39.0 13.7 0.884 1.49 0.984 37.0 484 100803_unit12 48 2005 100 -45.5 14.7 0.884 1.49 0.984 37.2 476 100803_unit12 49 2005 100 -48.0 15.0 0.884 1.49 0.984 37.3 472 100803_unit12 50 2001 100 -50.5 15.2 0.884 1.49 0.984 37.4 467 100803_unit12 51 2001 100 -43.0 13.5 0.876 1.51 0.984 37.5 481 100803_unit12 52 2002 100 -49.0 14.1 0.876 1.51 0.985 37.5 472 100803_unit12 53 2002 100 -33.0 11.6 0.876 1.51 0.984 37.5 501 100803_unit12 54 2001 100 -35.0 12.0 0.876 1.51 0.984 37.6 499 100803_unit12 55 2001 100 -38.0 12.6 0.876 1.51 0.984 37.6 492 100803_unit12 56 2001 100 -40.0 12.9 0.876 1.51 0.984 37.6 488 100803_unit12 57 2002 100 -46.0 13.8 0.876 1.51 0.985 37.6 478 100803_unit12 58 1498 50 -23.0 18.1 0.730 1.07 0.927 56.2 490 100803_unit12 59 1498 50 -15.0 16.9 0.730 1.06 0.928 56.0 515 100803_unit12 60 1497 50 -15.0 -5.1 0.026 34.04 0.927 55.1 110 Table E.47 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1 227 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100803_unit12 31 320.4 0.23 12.56 3.9 3.80 4.86 11.4 35 75 100803_unit12 32 301.1 0.25 12.00 3.6 4.05 5.17 8.4 36 72 100803_unit12 33 285.4 0.30 11.65 3.3 4.26 5.26 10.5 37 71 100803_unit12 34 273.7 0.37 11.33 3.1 4.45 5.46 8.3 38 69 100803_unit12 35 265.6 0.47 11.05 3.0 4.58 5.64 8.4 39 66 100803_unit12 36 260.2 0.57 11.05 2.9 4.68 5.77 5.9 39 65 100803_unit12 37 250.7 0.95 10.61 2.7 4.86 5.93 4.8 42 63 100803_unit12 38 246.8 1.23 10.47 2.6 4.94 6.03 4.2 44 61 100803_unit12 39 244.8 1.53 9.47 2.6 4.98 6.10 3.6 45 60 100803_unit12 40 286.1 0.28 15.08 3.9 4.13 5.20 9.8 43 73 100803_unit12 41 267.5 0.51 13.29 3.5 4.41 5.41 14.9 49 70 100803_unit12 42 353.5 0.17 20.88 5.9 3.34 4.49 14.2 38 81 100803_unit12 43 334.9 0.18 18.60 5.4 3.53 4.48 16.1 39 82 100803_unit12 44 317.4 0.20 17.33 4.9 3.72 4.80 11.5 40 79 100803_unit12 45 309.0 0.22 16.88 4.6 3.82 4.82 13.6 41 78 100803_unit12 46 324.8 0.25 18.37 4.9 3.61 NaN NaN NaN NaN 100803_unit12 47 308.3 0.22 17.91 4.8 3.81 4.80 15.2 43 78 100803_unit12 48 286.3 0.30 15.75 4.1 4.11 5.17 10.5 46 73 100803_unit12 49 281.2 0.33 14.91 3.9 4.18 5.16 15.4 48 73 100803_unit12 50 278.4 0.40 15.03 3.8 4.23 5.24 12.2 49 72 100803_unit12 51 308.7 0.23 15.04 5.1 3.78 4.81 13.0 45 79 100803_unit12 52 296.4 0.30 12.51 4.7 3.94 4.99 15.2 49 76 100803_unit12 53 361.6 0.17 6.75 6.7 3.23 4.24 20.4 40 85 100803_unit12 54 348.6 0.18 13.70 6.2 3.35 4.35 20.5 41 84 100803_unit12 55 332.0 0.19 13.58 5.8 3.52 4.64 16.5 42 80 100803_unit12 56 323.7 0.20 11.54 5.6 3.61 4.62 16.2 44 81 100803_unit12 57 303.8 0.26 15.62 4.9 3.84 4.92 17.2 47 76 100803_unit12 58 256.8 14.20 3.73 1.4 5.06 6.24 1.8 22 43 100803_unit12 59 275.0 7.79 5.02 1.8 4.72 5.88 3.0 22 43 100803_unit12 60 -32.2 -0.03 -0.36 0.0 -1.41 -0.17 -3.3 -73 -2 Table E.48 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2 228 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100804_unit13 1 1501 50 -23.0 -6.0 0.020 45.66 0.913 43.7 53 100804_unit13 2 1500 50 -23.0 18.0 0.730 1.06 0.925 50.5 486 100804_unit13 3 2502 100 -23.0 25.5 1.645 1.06 0.971 33.2 581 100804_unit13 4 2505 100 -31.0 26.9 1.645 1.05 0.971 34.1 564 100804_unit13 5 2498 100 -16.0 23.1 1.645 1.04 0.971 35.1 618 100804_unit13 6 2503 100 -19.0 24.1 1.645 1.05 0.972 35.5 610 100804_unit13 7 2503 100 -21.0 24.9 1.645 1.05 0.971 35.7 600 100804_unit13 8 2504 100 -26.0 26.2 1.645 1.04 0.973 35.9 580 100804_unit13 9 2502 100 -28.0 26.5 1.645 1.04 0.973 36.1 575 100804_unit13 10 2502 100 -28.0 23.2 1.494 1.17 0.973 36.1 555 100804_unit13 11 2494 100 -42.0 25.0 1.494 1.16 0.973 36.2 520 100804_unit13 12 2499 100 -21.0 21.5 1.494 1.17 0.973 36.3 578 100804_unit13 13 2500 100 -23.5 22.2 1.494 1.17 0.972 36.5 568 100804_unit13 14 2500 100 -26.0 23.2 1.494 1.17 0.972 36.5 554 100804_unit13 15 2504 100 -31.0 24.0 1.494 1.18 0.972 36.7 544 100804_unit13 16 2500 100 -33.5 24.5 1.494 1.17 0.972 36.7 536 100804_unit13 17 2500 100 -36.0 24.8 1.494 1.17 0.972 36.7 529 100804_unit13 18 2500 100 -39.0 24.9 1.494 1.17 0.973 36.8 524 100804_unit13 19 2503 100 -39.0 22.1 1.380 1.30 0.972 36.6 512 100804_unit13 20 2500 100 -60.0 22.6 1.380 1.28 0.972 36.7 483 100804_unit13 21 2501 100 -23.0 17.8 1.380 1.29 0.971 36.7 575 100804_unit13 22 2501 100 -26.0 18.8 1.380 1.29 0.972 36.9 563 100804_unit13 23 2502 100 -29.0 19.8 1.380 1.29 0.972 37.0 550 100804_unit13 24 2502 100 -32.0 20.8 1.380 1.30 0.972 37.0 533 100804_unit13 25 2503 100 -35.0 21.4 1.380 1.30 0.971 37.0 522 100804_unit13 26 2505 100 -42.0 22.4 1.380 1.30 0.971 37.0 507 100804_unit13 27 2503 100 -46.0 22.8 1.380 1.30 0.972 36.9 499 100804_unit13 28 2500 100 -49.0 22.9 1.380 1.29 0.972 36.9 495 100804_unit13 29 2499 100 -53.0 22.9 1.380 1.29 0.971 36.9 489 100804_unit13 30 2499 100 -57.0 22.8 1.380 1.29 0.971 36.9 485 Table E.49 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 229 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100804_unit13 1 -20.8 -0.02 -0.06 0.0 -1.67 -0.18 -3.0 -46 9 100804_unit13 2 257.8 12.34 3.79 1.5 5.03 6.27 1.7 23 42 100804_unit13 3 245.8 8.83 2.50 1.5 7.13 8.29 3.8 25 51 100804_unit13 4 233.4 16.38 2.12 1.1 7.51 8.72 2.4 25 50 100804_unit13 5 272.4 5.54 3.05 1.8 6.45 7.52 6.2 25 52 100804_unit13 6 260.3 6.62 2.68 1.8 6.73 7.81 4.9 25 51 100804_unit13 7 251.7 8.10 2.57 1.6 6.96 8.02 4.7 25 50 100804_unit13 8 239.4 12.35 2.35 1.2 7.32 8.52 3.2 25 50 100804_unit13 9 236.6 13.81 2.16 1.2 7.41 8.54 2.7 25 50 100804_unit13 10 246.3 4.63 3.83 1.7 6.47 7.56 3.6 28 54 100804_unit13 11 229.2 18.11 2.24 1.1 6.97 8.17 1.8 29 52 100804_unit13 12 266.0 2.40 3.89 1.8 5.99 7.04 6.0 27 56 100804_unit13 13 257.2 2.94 4.18 1.8 6.20 7.27 5.6 27 55 100804_unit13 14 246.0 4.09 3.30 1.7 6.48 7.43 5.6 28 54 100804_unit13 15 237.1 6.80 2.96 1.5 6.71 7.84 3.7 27 52 100804_unit13 16 233.0 9.20 2.70 1.4 6.84 8.00 2.9 28 51 100804_unit13 17 229.8 11.63 2.45 1.3 6.94 8.08 2.3 28 50 100804_unit13 18 228.8 14.56 2.37 1.2 6.97 8.09 2.0 28 52 100804_unit13 19 238.1 3.46 4.92 1.9 6.17 7.34 3.1 32 56 100804_unit13 20 232.7 19.77 2.66 1.3 6.32 7.53 1.5 39 56 100804_unit13 21 296.7 0.69 5.26 2.4 4.96 6.01 10.1 31 67 100804_unit13 22 280.5 0.85 5.94 2.3 5.25 6.25 8.5 32 65 100804_unit13 23 266.0 1.14 5.43 2.2 5.53 6.61 6.8 32 62 100804_unit13 24 253.7 1.63 5.93 2.1 5.80 6.93 5.0 32 58 100804_unit13 25 245.7 2.23 5.78 2.0 5.98 7.12 4.8 32 57 100804_unit13 26 235.3 4.50 4.92 1.9 6.24 7.41 2.8 34 56 100804_unit13 27 231.4 6.77 4.35 1.8 6.35 7.53 2.7 34 55 100804_unit13 28 229.9 9.37 3.88 1.6 6.40 7.55 2.6 36 55 100804_unit13 29 229.8 12.72 3.47 1.5 6.41 7.57 1.7 36 54 100804_unit13 30 231.3 17.52 3.00 1.4 6.37 7.56 1.7 38 56 Table E.50 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2500/NA, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 230 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100804_unit13 31 2499 100 -46.0 19.4 1.286 1.41 0.970 36.8 496 100804_unit13 32 2499 100 -53.0 20.3 1.286 1.41 0.970 36.8 483 100804_unit13 33 2499 100 -29.0 15.5 1.286 1.40 0.970 37.0 556 100804_unit13 34 2499 100 -31.5 16.8 1.286 1.41 0.970 37.1 540 100804_unit13 35 2500 100 -33.5 17.3 1.286 1.41 0.971 37.1 532 100804_unit13 36 2500 100 -36.0 18.0 1.286 1.41 0.970 37.2 521 100804_unit13 37 2500 100 -38.5 18.4 1.286 1.41 0.970 37.2 514 100804_unit13 38 2501 100 -41.0 19.0 1.286 1.41 0.971 37.2 505 100804_unit13 39 2501 100 -43.5 19.4 1.286 1.41 0.971 37.2 500 100804_unit13 40 2500 100 -48.5 20.0 1.286 1.41 0.971 37.2 490 100804_unit13 41 2502 100 -51.0 20.1 1.286 1.42 0.971 37.1 485 100804_unit13 42 2499 100 -38.0 16.3 1.250 1.46 0.970 37.2 523 100804_unit13 43 2497 100 -44.0 17.6 1.250 1.46 0.970 37.2 503 100804_unit13 44 2497 100 -34.0 15.5 1.250 1.45 0.970 37.4 532 100804_unit13 45 2497 100 -36.0 16.1 1.250 1.45 0.970 37.5 525 100804_unit13 46 2497 100 -41.0 17.1 1.250 1.46 0.970 37.5 514 100804_unit13 47 2497 100 -39.0 20.8 1.330 1.36 0.970 37.8 508 100804_unit13 48 2497 100 -56.0 22.1 1.330 1.35 0.970 37.7 481 100804_unit13 49 2497 100 -24.0 16.9 1.330 1.35 0.970 38.1 564 100804_unit13 50 2497 100 -32.0 19.1 1.330 1.35 0.970 38.1 533 100804_unit13 51 2498 100 -47.5 21.8 1.330 1.35 0.970 38.2 488 100804_unit13 52 2498 100 -47.0 24.0 1.435 1.23 0.970 38.3 502 100804_unit13 53 2499 100 -22.0 20.2 1.435 1.23 0.970 38.5 572 100804_unit13 54 2499 100 -29.0 22.3 1.435 1.24 0.970 38.6 542 100804_unit13 55 2500 100 -35.0 23.2 1.435 1.24 0.971 38.6 528 100804_unit13 56 2500 100 -41.0 23.8 1.435 1.24 0.971 38.6 514 100804_unit13 57 2499 100 -23.0 25.6 1.645 1.05 0.971 39.1 596 100804_unit13 58 1498 50 -23.0 18.2 0.730 1.10 0.923 57.2 486 100804_unit13 59 1498 50 -15.0 16.9 0.730 1.10 0.923 57.2 505 100804_unit13 60 1496 50 -15.0 -5.0 0.030 29.46 0.922 56.5 109 Table E.51 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 1 231 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100804_unit13 31 252.7 1.10 9.52 2.7 5.43 6.56 6.4 41 64 100804_unit13 32 242.4 2.07 8.50 2.5 5.66 6.74 5.4 45 63 100804_unit13 33 317.6 0.33 10.51 3.7 4.32 5.28 12.7 36 78 100804_unit13 34 293.0 0.39 10.05 3.2 4.68 5.67 10.8 36 74 100804_unit13 35 284.4 0.44 9.65 3.1 4.82 5.83 12.1 37 72 100804_unit13 36 272.8 0.55 9.83 2.9 5.02 6.07 9.1 37 69 100804_unit13 37 266.3 0.63 9.53 2.8 5.15 6.22 8.5 38 68 100804_unit13 38 258.9 0.79 9.66 2.8 5.30 6.32 7.7 39 67 100804_unit13 39 252.5 1.01 9.24 2.7 5.43 6.49 6.8 40 65 100804_unit13 40 245.7 1.56 8.74 2.6 5.58 6.72 5.0 41 62 100804_unit13 41 243.6 1.82 8.94 2.6 5.62 6.72 5.2 43 63 100804_unit13 42 293.1 0.35 13.06 3.8 4.55 5.66 12.8 40 76 100804_unit13 43 270.9 0.54 12.84 3.4 4.93 5.99 9.4 43 72 100804_unit13 44 309.4 0.30 14.35 4.1 4.32 5.35 14.1 39 78 100804_unit13 45 297.3 0.33 13.62 3.8 4.49 5.52 12.6 39 77 100804_unit13 46 280.2 0.43 12.78 3.5 4.77 5.80 10.2 42 74 100804_unit13 47 244.3 1.82 6.97 2.3 5.81 6.88 4.9 35 60 100804_unit13 48 229.8 8.70 4.54 1.9 6.18 7.29 2.4 41 58 100804_unit13 49 301.2 0.49 8.19 2.7 4.72 5.72 10.8 32 70 100804_unit13 50 266.8 0.85 7.56 2.5 5.32 6.45 7.2 34 64 100804_unit13 51 233.1 4.79 5.97 2.0 6.09 7.24 2.7 37 57 100804_unit13 52 228.9 17.74 2.68 1.3 6.69 7.89 1.7 31 54 100804_unit13 53 272.1 1.53 4.67 2.1 5.63 6.69 7.4 28 58 100804_unit13 54 246.4 3.15 4.93 1.9 6.21 7.26 5.7 29 55 100804_unit13 55 235.9 5.97 3.67 1.7 6.49 7.66 3.1 29 54 100804_unit13 56 229.8 10.72 3.09 1.5 6.66 7.80 2.3 30 53 100804_unit13 57 245.7 10.19 2.39 1.5 7.14 8.17 4.2 25 50 100804_unit13 58 256.3 13.15 4.20 1.6 5.07 6.20 1.7 23 43 100804_unit13 59 275.6 7.01 5.05 2.0 4.72 5.81 2.8 23 42 100804_unit13 60 -38.0 -0.04 -0.33 0.0 -1.40 -0.20 -2.8 -53 3 Table E.52 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2500/NA, Points 31 ? 60: Part 2 232 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100805_unit14 1 1499 50 -23.0 -5.8 0.023 38.75 0.910 45.0 54 100805_unit14 2 1504 50 -23.0 17.8 0.730 1.07 0.920 49.9 487 100805_unit14 3 1502 100 -16.0 48.6 1.799 1.15 1.768 33.1 491 100805_unit14 4 1500 100 -18.0 50.0 1.799 1.15 1.766 33.6 484 100805_unit14 5 1507 100 -14.0 47.4 1.799 1.15 1.753 33.9 502 100805_unit14 6 1508 100 -12.0 45.9 1.799 1.16 1.754 34.2 511 100805_unit14 7 1507 100 -19.0 46.5 1.699 1.23 1.748 34.4 479 100805_unit14 8 1500 100 -25.0 49.7 1.699 1.23 1.761 34.6 457 100805_unit14 9 1497 100 -23.0 48.9 1.699 1.23 1.759 34.9 463 100805_unit14 10 1505 100 -17.0 45.5 1.699 1.24 1.747 35.0 483 100805_unit14 11 1505 100 -21.0 47.9 1.699 1.24 1.753 35.2 471 100805_unit14 12 1500 100 -15.0 44.1 1.699 1.24 1.751 35.3 493 100805_unit14 13 1506 100 -13.0 42.2 1.699 1.24 1.746 35.5 504 100805_unit14 14 1501 100 -33.0 47.9 1.599 1.31 1.752 35.6 434 100805_unit14 15 1499 100 -31.0 47.1 1.599 1.32 1.755 35.5 432 100805_unit14 16 1499 100 -29.0 46.3 1.599 1.33 1.753 35.7 441 100805_unit14 17 1499 100 -27.0 45.5 1.599 1.33 1.751 35.6 447 100805_unit14 18 1499 100 -25.0 44.8 1.599 1.33 1.751 35.6 451 100805_unit14 19 1499 100 -23.0 44.3 1.599 1.33 1.748 35.7 460 100805_unit14 20 1498 100 -21.0 42.9 1.599 1.33 1.747 35.7 468 100805_unit14 21 1498 100 -19.0 41.8 1.599 1.33 1.743 35.8 475 100805_unit14 22 1499 100 -44.0 45.8 1.499 1.41 1.752 35.7 406 100805_unit14 23 1499 100 -42.0 45.4 1.499 1.42 1.750 35.6 410 100805_unit14 24 1498 100 -40.0 44.9 1.499 1.42 1.749 35.6 413 100805_unit14 25 1498 100 -38.0 44.5 1.499 1.42 1.745 35.5 417 100805_unit14 26 1499 100 -36.0 43.8 1.499 1.42 1.743 35.5 423 100805_unit14 27 1499 100 -34.0 43.2 1.499 1.41 1.738 35.5 427 100805_unit14 28 1499 100 -32.0 42.4 1.499 1.42 1.740 35.6 433 100805_unit14 29 1499 100 -30.0 41.5 1.499 1.42 1.736 35.7 440 100805_unit14 30 1499 100 -28.0 40.6 1.499 1.42 1.736 35.8 447 Table E.53 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 233 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100805_unit14 1 -25.2 -0.02 -0.07 0.0 -1.63 -0.18 -3.0 -41 7 100805_unit14 2 260.1 11.30 4.68 1.6 4.97 6.21 1.9 23 43 100805_unit14 3 235.1 6.53 6.26 1.3 13.58 13.95 4.8 22 47 100805_unit14 4 229.0 8.43 5.92 1.2 13.96 14.43 3.5 22 46 100805_unit14 5 240.7 5.85 6.02 1.3 13.22 13.48 4.3 23 48 100805_unit14 6 248.2 4.88 5.73 1.5 12.81 13.17 5.8 22 49 100805_unit14 7 231.8 4.00 6.38 1.4 12.97 13.30 4.9 24 51 100805_unit14 8 217.8 8.13 5.65 1.3 13.87 14.30 3.2 25 47 100805_unit14 9 221.4 6.62 5.57 1.3 13.67 14.00 3.7 25 48 100805_unit14 10 237.0 3.22 6.62 1.5 12.70 12.80 5.6 24 52 100805_unit14 11 225.2 5.40 6.11 1.4 13.37 13.69 4.1 24 48 100805_unit14 12 245.0 2.58 6.71 1.5 12.33 12.47 5.6 24 53 100805_unit14 13 255.1 2.06 6.70 1.5 11.80 11.89 5.4 24 55 100805_unit14 14 212.5 6.79 6.00 1.5 13.37 13.68 3.5 28 52 100805_unit14 15 216.3 5.06 7.24 1.5 13.15 13.48 4.1 28 52 100805_unit14 16 219.9 3.91 7.48 1.6 12.93 13.15 4.3 28 53 100805_unit14 17 224.0 2.92 7.55 1.6 12.70 12.94 5.0 27 54 100805_unit14 18 227.5 2.36 7.85 1.6 12.50 12.77 4.9 28 54 100805_unit14 19 229.8 1.97 7.48 1.6 12.38 12.37 6.2 27 56 100805_unit14 20 237.7 1.49 7.58 1.7 11.97 12.12 6.3 27 58 100805_unit14 21 243.9 1.30 7.94 1.7 11.66 11.71 7.3 27 59 100805_unit14 22 208.7 6.20 7.37 1.8 12.78 13.06 2.9 35 57 100805_unit14 23 210.4 4.52 7.41 1.9 12.67 13.02 3.2 34 56 100805_unit14 24 212.6 3.52 8.27 1.9 12.55 12.86 3.5 33 57 100805_unit14 25 214.8 2.75 8.54 2.0 12.42 12.65 5.0 33 57 100805_unit14 26 218.1 2.11 8.82 2.0 12.23 12.41 5.2 33 59 100805_unit14 27 221.0 1.78 8.76 2.0 12.07 12.12 6.0 32 61 100805_unit14 28 225.4 1.33 9.13 2.0 11.84 12.06 6.0 32 60 100805_unit14 29 230.3 1.03 9.16 2.0 11.58 11.76 6.3 32 62 100805_unit14 30 235.4 0.79 9.18 2.1 11.33 11.33 8.1 32 64 Table E.54 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 234 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100805_unit14 31 1499 100 -26.0 39.4 1.499 1.41 1.734 35.9 454 100805_unit14 32 1498 100 -24.0 37.9 1.499 1.42 1.734 35.9 463 100805_unit14 33 1499 100 -51.0 44.0 1.449 1.47 1.748 35.9 398 100805_unit14 34 1499 100 -49.0 43.9 1.449 1.46 1.746 35.7 399 100805_unit14 35 1499 100 -47.0 43.6 1.449 1.47 1.746 35.7 401 100805_unit14 36 1499 100 -45.0 43.1 1.449 1.47 1.742 35.6 404 100805_unit14 37 1499 100 -43.0 42.6 1.449 1.47 1.740 35.6 409 100805_unit14 38 1499 100 -41.0 42.1 1.449 1.46 1.735 35.7 414 100805_unit14 39 1499 100 -39.0 41.5 1.449 1.47 1.737 35.8 418 100805_unit14 40 1499 100 -37.0 40.6 1.449 1.47 1.734 35.8 424 100805_unit14 41 1499 100 -35.0 39.8 1.449 1.47 1.732 35.8 431 100805_unit14 42 1499 100 -33.0 39.2 1.449 1.47 1.728 35.9 436 100805_unit14 43 1499 50 -23.0 18.2 0.730 1.11 0.920 55.0 480 100805_unit14 44 1499 50 -15.0 16.9 0.730 1.11 0.921 55.3 503 100805_unit14 45 1498 50 -15.0 -4.9 0.031 28.16 0.919 55.4 109 Table E.55 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/SC, Points 31 ? 45: Part 1 235 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100805_unit14 31 242.3 0.63 9.60 2.1 11.01 10.97 9.7 31 67 100805_unit14 32 251.9 0.51 9.86 2.1 10.60 10.62 9.9 31 68 100805_unit14 33 209.8 5.11 8.19 2.0 12.28 12.66 3.2 39 59 100805_unit14 34 210.4 4.15 8.76 2.1 12.25 12.47 3.1 39 59 100805_unit14 35 211.9 3.48 9.10 2.1 12.16 12.50 3.4 38 59 100805_unit14 36 214.4 2.48 9.62 2.2 12.02 12.16 4.8 38 61 100805_unit14 37 216.7 2.02 9.72 2.3 11.89 11.98 6.1 38 62 100805_unit14 38 219.4 1.60 10.09 2.3 11.75 11.83 6.2 37 63 100805_unit14 39 222.2 1.26 10.28 2.3 11.60 11.69 5.6 36 64 100805_unit14 40 227.1 0.92 10.56 2.4 11.35 11.54 6.4 36 64 100805_unit14 41 232.1 0.73 10.71 2.4 11.10 11.13 7.7 35 68 100805_unit14 42 235.6 0.60 10.65 2.4 10.94 10.94 7.3 35 68 100805_unit14 43 256.1 12.28 4.35 1.7 5.07 6.18 1.7 23 43 100805_unit14 44 275.3 6.48 5.04 2.0 4.72 5.83 3.0 23 42 100805_unit14 45 -40.1 -0.04 -0.33 0.0 -1.38 -0.18 -2.8 -47 6 Table E.56 ? Performance Data, SJA, 1500/SC, Points 31 ? 45: Part 2 236 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100809_unit15 1 1500 51 -23.0 -6.1 0.012 72.59 0.912 40.3 48 100809_unit15 2 1500 50 -23.0 18.4 0.730 1.03 0.922 47.5 488 100809_unit15 3 1995 100 -16.0 42.5 2.146 1.13 1.760 30.4 554 100809_unit15 4 1997 100 -18.0 43.8 2.146 1.13 1.764 31.2 545 100809_unit15 5 1998 100 -20.0 45.2 2.146 1.12 1.755 31.8 537 100809_unit15 6 1997 100 -22.0 46.3 2.146 1.13 1.761 32.3 529 100809_unit15 7 1996 100 -24.0 47.2 2.146 1.14 1.764 32.6 522 100809_unit15 8 2001 100 -31.0 45.5 2.013 1.23 1.755 32.9 493 100809_unit15 9 1999 100 -33.0 46.0 2.013 1.24 1.761 33.2 488 100809_unit15 10 2001 100 -29.0 44.7 2.013 1.24 1.750 33.3 497 100809_unit15 11 1999 100 -27.0 44.2 2.013 1.25 1.751 33.4 504 100809_unit15 12 2001 100 -25.0 43.4 2.013 1.25 1.746 33.7 511 100809_unit15 13 2008 100 -23.0 42.0 2.013 1.25 1.742 33.8 520 100809_unit15 14 1998 100 -21.0 41.2 2.013 1.26 1.745 34.1 527 100809_unit15 15 1998 100 -19.0 39.9 2.013 1.26 1.743 34.3 536 100809_unit15 16 1999 100 -41.0 43.4 1.880 1.35 1.746 34.2 463 100809_unit15 17 1998 100 -39.0 43.1 1.880 1.35 1.748 34.1 467 100809_unit15 18 1999 100 -37.0 42.5 1.880 1.35 1.745 34.2 471 100809_unit15 19 2003 100 -35.0 42.1 1.880 1.35 1.738 34.2 477 100809_unit15 20 2005 100 -33.0 41.3 1.880 1.35 1.735 34.2 483 100809_unit15 21 2006 100 -31.0 40.5 1.880 1.36 1.736 34.3 490 100809_unit15 22 2005 100 -29.0 39.7 1.880 1.35 1.732 34.4 496 100809_unit15 23 2003 100 -27.0 38.6 1.880 1.36 1.735 34.4 503 100809_unit15 24 2003 100 -56.0 40.3 1.747 1.46 1.743 34.4 438 100809_unit15 25 2004 100 -54.0 40.4 1.747 1.46 1.736 34.3 440 100809_unit15 26 2005 100 -52.0 40.0 1.747 1.46 1.737 34.3 441 100809_unit15 27 2005 100 -50.0 39.9 1.747 1.46 1.734 34.3 445 100809_unit15 28 2001 100 -48.0 39.4 1.747 1.46 1.734 34.3 448 100809_unit15 29 2002 100 -46.0 39.0 1.747 1.46 1.729 34.3 452 100809_unit15 30 2004 100 -44.0 38.7 1.747 1.46 1.727 34.3 457 Table E.57 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 1 237 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100809_unit15 1 -12.5 -0.02 -0.05 0.0 -1.70 -0.17 -3.0 -43 14 100809_unit15 2 252.5 12.32 4.34 1.2 5.14 6.35 1.6 23 42 100809_unit15 3 241.5 3.63 4.62 1.4 11.88 12.24 5.4 25 53 100809_unit15 4 234.1 4.30 4.66 1.3 12.24 12.72 5.0 25 51 100809_unit15 5 226.9 5.95 4.91 1.1 12.62 13.09 4.5 25 50 100809_unit15 6 221.6 7.55 4.86 1.1 12.94 13.38 3.7 25 50 100809_unit15 7 217.7 9.13 4.73 1.0 13.17 13.71 3.7 25 49 100809_unit15 8 211.0 7.25 5.43 1.1 12.72 13.13 3.6 28 53 100809_unit15 9 209.2 8.58 4.88 1.1 12.84 13.35 2.5 28 50 100809_unit15 10 214.8 6.01 6.04 1.2 12.49 12.91 3.1 28 52 100809_unit15 11 217.5 4.88 5.47 1.2 12.35 12.92 3.6 27 51 100809_unit15 12 221.5 3.83 5.59 1.3 12.11 12.45 4.6 27 54 100809_unit15 13 227.9 2.92 5.70 1.3 11.73 12.17 4.6 27 54 100809_unit15 14 233.4 2.44 5.75 1.3 11.51 11.94 5.4 27 55 100809_unit15 15 240.8 1.97 5.81 1.4 11.16 11.47 5.6 27 57 100809_unit15 16 207.1 6.51 6.43 1.4 12.11 12.61 2.7 33 56 100809_unit15 17 208.6 5.17 6.55 1.4 12.03 12.59 2.4 32 54 100809_unit15 18 211.2 4.01 7.19 1.4 11.88 12.29 4.1 33 57 100809_unit15 19 213.0 3.27 6.93 1.5 11.75 12.18 3.6 32 57 100809_unit15 20 216.7 2.49 7.09 1.5 11.54 11.95 5.0 31 57 100809_unit15 21 221.3 1.78 7.13 1.5 11.30 11.62 5.4 32 59 100809_unit15 22 225.8 1.47 7.08 1.5 11.08 11.27 6.1 31 61 100809_unit15 23 232.5 1.13 7.28 1.6 10.77 11.02 6.0 31 62 100809_unit15 24 206.8 4.74 8.23 1.8 11.25 11.78 2.8 43 62 100809_unit15 25 206.3 4.13 7.97 1.8 11.28 11.51 4.1 44 63 100809_unit15 26 208.3 3.59 8.86 1.8 11.16 11.56 3.4 42 63 100809_unit15 27 208.8 2.99 8.93 1.8 11.13 11.38 4.8 42 65 100809_unit15 28 211.5 2.29 9.44 1.8 11.01 11.33 5.3 41 64 100809_unit15 29 213.9 1.96 9.72 1.8 10.88 11.23 4.8 40 64 100809_unit15 30 215.3 1.62 9.65 1.9 10.80 11.23 5.1 39 64 Table E.58 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/SC, Points 1 ? 30: Part 2 238 Filename Point Engine Speed Throttle Ign. Timing Brake Torque Fuel Mass Flow ! MAP Inlet Man. Temp. Exhaust Temp. - - rpm % degCA ATDC Nm kg/hr - bar ?C ?C 100809_unit15 31 2003 100 -42.0 38.1 1.747 1.47 1.732 34.5 462 100809_unit15 32 2004 100 -40.0 37.5 1.747 1.47 1.728 34.4 466 100809_unit15 33 2005 100 -38.0 36.6 1.747 1.46 1.725 34.4 473 100809_unit15 34 2004 100 -36.0 35.8 1.747 1.46 1.723 34.5 480 100809_unit15 35 2003 100 -47.0 35.1 1.681 1.52 1.722 34.4 456 100809_unit15 36 2005 100 -68.0 38.3 1.681 1.52 1.736 34.4 429 100809_unit15 37 2000 100 -65.0 38.3 1.681 1.52 1.738 34.3 429 100809_unit15 38 2001 100 -62.0 38.0 1.681 1.52 1.733 34.3 431 100809_unit15 39 1999 100 -59.0 37.8 1.681 1.52 1.731 34.2 435 100809_unit15 40 1999 100 -56.0 37.4 1.681 1.52 1.728 34.2 438 100809_unit15 41 1999 100 -53.0 36.7 1.681 1.53 1.730 34.1 443 100809_unit15 42 1999 100 -50.0 36.2 1.681 1.52 1.725 34.0 448 100809_unit15 43 1994 100 -44.0 35.0 1.681 1.52 1.723 34.2 462 100809_unit15 44 1994 100 -41.0 33.9 1.681 1.53 1.726 34.2 469 100809_unit15 45 1500 50 -23.0 18.7 0.730 1.10 0.919 54.0 479 100809_unit15 46 1500 50 -15.0 17.5 0.730 1.10 0.918 54.3 502 100809_unit15 47 1500 50 -15.0 -4.9 0.018 50.02 0.919 53.8 106 Table E.59 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/SC, Points 31 ? 47: Part 1 239 Filename Point BSFC BSNOx BSCH4 BSCO BMEP GIMEP COV of GIMEP Ign. Delay Comb. Dur - - g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh bar bar % degCA degCA 100809_unit15 31 218.9 1.21 9.40 2.0 10.63 10.82 6.1 39 67 100809_unit15 32 222.4 1.06 10.07 1.9 10.46 10.56 7.3 39 68 100809_unit15 33 227.7 0.76 10.27 2.0 10.21 10.39 6.1 38 69 100809_unit15 34 232.7 0.62 10.07 2.0 9.99 10.21 7.1 37 70 100809_unit15 35 228.1 0.68 13.32 2.4 9.81 9.91 8.9 44 75 100809_unit15 36 209.0 3.66 9.83 2.1 10.70 11.00 4.8 55 69 100809_unit15 37 209.4 3.11 10.39 2.1 10.71 11.07 5.1 52 68 100809_unit15 38 211.2 2.57 11.04 2.1 10.61 10.87 5.2 52 69 100809_unit15 39 212.2 2.12 11.10 2.1 10.56 10.83 5.9 50 69 100809_unit15 40 214.5 1.66 11.60 2.2 10.46 11.06 4.7 45 65 100809_unit15 41 218.9 1.22 12.17 2.3 10.25 10.39 7.1 47 71 100809_unit15 42 221.7 0.96 12.66 2.3 10.11 10.32 7.4 45 72 100809_unit15 43 230.0 0.58 12.22 2.4 9.77 9.64 11.4 43 78 100809_unit15 44 237.5 0.43 12.69 2.5 9.47 9.53 9.2 42 78 100809_unit15 45 248.5 14.67 4.29 1.3 5.23 6.37 1.3 22 42 100809_unit15 46 265.7 8.43 6.00 1.7 4.89 5.97 2.8 22 42 100809_unit15 47 -22.7 -0.03 -0.36 0.0 -1.37 -0.19 -4.1 -56 4 Table E.60 ? Performance Data, SJA, 2000/SC, Points 31 ? 47: Part 2
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Mechanical Engineering
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Jet squish motion in a homogeneous-charge spark-ignition engine fueled by natural gas
Text