CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MACHINES A COMBUSTION

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMBUSTION ENGINES

PAPER NO.: 38 DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS ANALYSIS OF THE NOx-SFOC TRADE-OFF IN TWO-STROKE MARINE ENGINE
Stefan Mayer, MAN Diesel & Turbo SE, Denmark Tuner Adina Elena, MAN Diesel & Turbo SE, Denmark Anders Andreasen, MAN Diesel & Turbo SE, Denmark

Abstract: Conducting tests on large marine twostroke engines is very expensive in terms of manpower, and the running costs - especially the fuel oil consumption - are signicant. In order to achieve high quality and steady state results, the time required per test is also a major constrain on the extent of the test plan. In order to reduce the number of tests required to map the response surface of a given number of variables, the theory of design of experiments (DOE) is applied in the present study. Further, a strategy of achieving quasi steady state in which tests are conducted fast allowing only little time for engine stabilisation upon changing parameters is utilised in order to bring down the time required per test.

In the present study we present results of the mapping of the response surfaces of NOx , SFOC, and maximum cylinder pressure with respect to start of injection, exhaust valve closing, injection pressure, injection nozzle hole size, injection prole characteristics, and turbocharger turbine area. Special emphasis is laid on the SFOC/ NOx trade-off and identifying the means to meet future NOx emissions legislation (IMO Tier II), while minimising the penalty in specic fuel oil consumption. Different scenarios are investigated by means of constrained optimisation mapping the results as function of usually measured performance parameters, such as scavenge pressure, compression pressure, maximum pressure, etc.

c CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

INTRODUCTION
For the first decades of our century and probably as long as the fuel reserves will be available and competitive in price, the diesel engine will remain the main power generator in the maritime sector. Increasing the efficiency of the large marine engines will keep on being a major research preoccupation, since this engine is just in the beginning of benefitting from technologies which are standard in the development of the automotive engines. Meanwhile ongoing concern for environmental issues leads to continuous tightening of the emission regulations also for ship engines. Thus, finding the optimal compromise between decreasing both fuel consumption and NOx emissions -given their opposite trends- represents now the big challenge for the marine engines too. Modern internal combustion engines are very complex systems, where lots of factors interact making it difficult to separate effects and distinguish trends. In most of the times altering one operational factor determines a chain of readjustments of many other parameters. In general, the electronically controlled (ME) engines, with their extended spectrum of tunable variables compared to the mechanically controlled (MC) engines, offer a wider and more relevant frame for simulation studies and optimizations. As the name indicates, design of experiments (DOE) is dedicated for applications where systems are studied by running -in an educated way- a series of similar tests. The objects of study are complex products or processes, defined with a multitude of parameters (termed independent variables) which usually interact in the effects on certain variables (termed response factors/ dependent variables). The main advantage of using DOE in tests series lies in the massive reduction in the number of necessary tests for a specific study. This benefit is possible by keeping the focus only on detected main effects, and is enhanced by taking in consideration of the interactions appearing between the studied parameters. In this study the concept of Design of Experiments is explored in relation to tests performed on the electronically controlled two-stroke test engine MAN B&W 4T50ME-X [1]. The purpose of the tests is to map how the responses as specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC), maximum cylinder pressure (Pmax), and specific NOx emissions depend on the following independent variables: injection profile, fuel nozzle hole area, start of injection, exhaust

valve closing timing, hydraulic pressure/injection pressure and turbine area. By employing DOE the number of experiments can be drastically reduced while still enabling the extraction of information of linear, quadratic or cross dependence on the response variables. However, still a significant number of experiments needs to be conducted. This has prompted for tests to be performed faster than usual in order to execute the experimental plan within a reasonable time frame. Thus, a substantial part of this study is devoted to the investigation of the quality of these fast tests. A possible spin-off of the DOE study is a significant reduction in the time required for performing engine tests. This paper follows the DOE investigation with: setup, the concept of fast tests, results, an optimization study and comparison to previous tests.

METHOD
Engine Setup In this section the physical setup and the actual adjustment of the engine is described. The main parameters of the test engine are given in Table 1. In the tests presented herein it was desired to explore variations in the following independent variables: Start of injection (SOI) Exhaust valve closing timing (EVC) Turbine area (TCA) Hydraulic pressure (Phyd)1 Fuel nozzle hole area (NozzA) (Figure 1) Injection profile step length (InjSt) see Figure 2 For all the 6 independent variables three different levels are defined and summarized in Table 2. The fuel pump oil pressure characteristic to the 3 step injection profiles are shown in Figure 1, while the same parameters characteristic to the 3 employed step injection profiles are given in Figure 2.

In the fuel pump (pressure booster) hydraulic oil is generating the desired injection pressure through an area reduction of approx. 4:1. Thus, increasing the hydraulic pressure by 30 bar increases the injection pressure by approx. 120 bar.

CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

Paper No. 38

Table 1 Main engine data, 4T50ME-X, and operational parameters at 75% load
Number of cylinders
Bore Stroke Load Power Crankshaft rotational speed Injection valves per cylinder Type of injection Fuel

4
0.5 m 2.2 m 75% MCR 5331 kW 111.7 rpm 2 Electronically controlled Marine diesel fuel

changes of the SOI and EVC from the reference values were identical for all cylinders. The engine is run so that the maximum pressure is kept within limits set by structural criteria.

Table 2 Ranges of the independent parameters to be varied in experiments (in bold the reference values)
Parameter SOI (CAD) (relative to level 0) EVC (CAD) (relative to level 0) TCA (relative to a default) Phyd (bar) InjSt (ms) NozzA (relative to level +1) Level -1 -2 -8 26% 170 10 -52% Level 0 0 0 38% 200 13 -35% Level +1 +2 +8 50% 230 15 0

Fig. 1 Fuel pump pressure corresponding to the 3 fuel-nozzle hole diameters

Both the SOI and EVC timings are relative to a reference timing corresponding to level 0. The reference/ baseline adjustment was chosen to correspond to a turbine area of 38% (relative to a default) giving a scavenging pressure of approx. 3 bar (absolute value), an exhaust valve closing timing giving compression ratio (Pcomp / Pscav) of approx. 44, a start of injection around TDC, giving a pressure rise (Pmax-Pcomp) of approx. 26 bar, a step injection profile having a length of 10 ms and a fuel nozzle with 52% reduced hole area compared to a default. Note that reference values differ from level 0 for the injection step length and the fuel nozzle hole area. The absolute SOI and EVC timings deviate slightly from cylinder to cylinder in order to have the engine in balance (that is with a relatively small cylinder-tocylinder variation in compression ratio, Pcomp, Pmax, and mean indicated pressure (MIP)). For all tests these timings, as well as the exhaust valve opening timing, were held constant for the baseline/ reference adjustment of the engine. The relative CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

Fig.2 Fuel pump pressure corresponding to the 3 step injection profiles DOE Setup A full factorial experimental design (all possible combinations of parameter settings) with 6 variables (factors) at 3 different levels (required in order to detect quadratic terms) results in 36 = 729 experiments. For practical reasons it is not possible to conduct that many experiments. However, by using intelligent experimental design of experiments it is possible to reduce the number of tests drastically by fractional factorial design. For further reading on DOE refer to the relevant literature listed in section Bibliography. By choosing a so-called face-centered central composite (CCF) design the number of experiments can be reduced to 44+6, where the last number represents repetitions of the center point, i.e. all parameters at level 0. The difference between a 3-factor 3-level full factorial and a CCF design is illustrated in Figure 3. The entire test matrix is shown in Table 4.

Paper No. 38

adjusting the length of the injection through the main operation panel (MOB). Except for the turbine area which also was controlled through the MOB, all other adjustments were carried out through the individual ECU/CCU terminals. As far as possible each day was ended by repeating the initial reference run. Fig.3 Illustration of 3-factor 3-level full factorial design (left) and 3-factor 3-level CCF design (right). Note the missing testing points corresponding to the middle of the cube edges. Fast Test Measurement Procedure The following parameters are measured for each test: On all 4 cylinders the fuel pump pressure, cylinder pressure and exhaust valve lift are measured dynamically. In addition the absolute scavenge pressure, exhaust receiver pressure, engine speed, engine torque and lube hole pressure (on cylinder 1) is measured as well. All data are logged at 2048 points per revolution and approx. 350 engine cycles (3 min.) are recorded and averaged. Standard performance (static) data such as ambient temperature, pressure, and humidity, scavenge air temperature and pressure, turbine and compressor inlet and outlet temperatures etc. are sampled every minute for 3-4 min. during measurements. The specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC) is measured both by a traditional fuel balance (gravimetric) method, as well as by an online mass flow meter. Gaseous mass emissions (CO, CO2, HC, NOx, and O2) are sampled every 10 s over a 3 min. period and averaged. Otherwise the measurement procedures are in accordance with the ISO 8178 standard [3] Engine part temperatures (cylinder liner, piston, exhaust valve etc.) were monitored every day of measurement although not sampled specifically for each test. After engine start and warm-up of approx. 2 hours, each test day is initiated by a reference run with the following parameters at the zero (0) level: Phyd, SOI, EVC, TCA. The injection profile step length is 10 ms. When going from one test to the next in the experimental plan cf. Table 3 the engine is readjusted accordingly, and the engine is allowed to stabilize for 3-4 min. (3:15 was found to be reasonable in terms of SFOC stabilization) before initiating the above specified measurements. When changing injection profile step length the mean indicated pressure was adjusted slightly by CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen Table 3 CCF design with 6 factors at 3 levels. With bold font the repeated reference case.
Run Order

Exp. No.

1 4 6 7 10 11 13 16 18 19 21 24 25 28 35 31 43 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 2 3 5 8 9 12 14 15 17 20 22 23 26 27 29 32 44

1 7 3 5 4 2 8 6 9 12 14 10 16 13 15 11 17 37 38 44 46 40 47 41 49 43 51 36 39 42 45 48 50 18 22 24 19 25 21 23 20 26 35 28 29 31 33 27 32 34

-2 2 2 -2 2 -2 -2 2 2 -2 -2 2 -2 2 2 -2 0 -2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -2 -2 2 -2 2 2 -2 -2 2 2 -2 2 -2 -2 2 0

-8 8 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 0 0 0 -8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 0

26 26 50 50 26 26 50 50 26 26 50 50 26 26 50 50 38 38 38 38 38 26 50 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 26 26 50 50 26 26 50 50 26 26 50 50 26 26 50 50 38

170 170 170 170 235 235 235 235 170 170 170 170 235 235 235 235 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 170 235 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 170 170 170 170 235 235 235 235 170 170 170 170 235 235 235 235 200

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 10 15 13 13 13 13 13 13 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 13

Paper No. 38

NozzA -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 -35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EVC

InjSt

TCA

SOI

Phyd

RESULTS

Engine stabilization. Measurement Repeatability The fuel flow has been measured in two ways: with a flow-meter and with the balance method. It was found that the SFOC (as measured by the flowmeter) stabilized within approximately 3 min. although with some fluctuations. Also some overshooting was observed. The measurement repeatability is probed both as a natural part of the experimental plan due to the repetition of the center point (tests no. 4550 cf. Table 4), and also by the reference runs performed each day. The repeatability is expressed in terms of standard deviation (). Investigated parameters are: SFOC (measured with 2 methods), Pmax, Pcomp, MIP, Pscav and NOx. It is found that repeatability is generally very good: in only a single case is greater than 1% which is for the measured compression pressure and for the within-day repeatability; for all other cases is smaller than 1%, in fact smaller than 0.5% in most cases.

are significant. Terms that are insignificant in modeling all three response variables are removed from the model, i.e. the quadratic terms of TCA, Phyd, and InjSt, and the interaction terms EVC*Phd, EVC*InjSt, TCA*Phd, TCA*InjSt, and Phd*InjSt. This results in a reduction in model terms from the original 28 to 19 (20 with the constant). Furthermore, it is found that a logarithmic transformation of the NOx seems to improve the model slightly. The further discussion is based on the reduced engine model, with the NOx response logarithmically transformed. The deducted correlation coefficient (R2) for the model is high and close to unity, signaling a very good fit, meaning almost all the variation in the response is explained by the model. This is partly due to a very high degree of reproducibility. Also the found high value for Q2 (the correlation coefficient taking cross validation into account) indicates a good ability to predict new data. Furthermore, the model residuals showed no severe deviations from normality. Figure 4 depicts the model coefficients, which are the coefficients which describe, in a linear combination, the dependence of the response variable to the independent variables. It is seen from the figure that the strongest terms are the linear ones, except for the nozzle area which displays a strong quadratic effect. Furthermore a clear trade-off is observed between SFOC/ NOx and SFOC/ Pmax, i.e. those parameters resulting in a decrease in SFOC, at the same time determine an increased NOx or Pmax. Optimization In the present section the DOE software is used in order to optimize the response variables by using the model found in the previous section. A single objective function is formed from all responses, and constrained optimization is handled on the level of the formulation of the objective functions for the individual responses. A number of different optimization scenarios are treated, while keeping the parameters within their boxes: 1. Estimate factors giving minimal SFOC while still meeting the IMO Tier I NOx limit of 17 g/kWh. This scenario is calculated for different levels of maximum cylinder pressure. 2. Estimate factors giving minimal SFOC while meeting the IMO Tier II NOx limit of 14.4 g/kWh. This scenario is calculated for different levels of maximum cylinder pressure.

Summary of the Response Variables The following response variables are chosen: SFOC, Pmax and the specific NOx. Neither the SFOC nor Pmax are corrected to ISO conditions since the ambient conditions did not change much over the week of the measurements. For the same reason the specific NOx emission is not corrected to ambient temperature and pressure. However the specific NOx is corrected to ISO ambient humidity applying the IMO correction factor [3]. Data are analyzed using MODDE 9.0 [5]. A summary of the statistics for the response variables over the 50 DOE tests is given in Table 4. Table 4 Summary statistics of the 3 response variables over the 50 tests
Std. dev. Min/ Max SFOC 3.85 g/kWh 0.92 NOx 2.44 g/kWh 0.54 Pmax 14.46 bar 0.63

Model Fit A first fit is made with a model containing all possible linear, quadratic, and interaction terms i.e. SOI, EVC, TCA, InjPr, Phyd, NozzA, SOI*EVC ... Phyd*NozzA, SOI2, EVC2, TCA2, InjSt2, Phyd2, NozzA2. However, it is apparent that not all terms CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

Paper No. 38

Fig. 4 Experimental DOE model coefficients 3. Estimate factors giving minimal SFOC regardless of the NOx emission. This scenario is calculated for different levels of maximum cylinder pressure and reflects cases where exhaust gas aftertreatment is an option. 4. Estimate factors giving minimal NOx emission regardless of the SFOC. This scenario is calculated for different levels of maximum cylinder pressure. This case reflects situations where local emission regulation penalizes NOx i.e. where further NOx reduction may be economically attractive. 5. Estimate factors giving minimal SFOC for a given NOx emission and a given maximum pressure. This is done for a range of different NOx levels with the maximum pressure fixed. This is repeated for different levels of maximum pressure. Scenario 1: Tier I SFOC minimization Results indicate that the increase in maximum pressure is connected to a decrease in SFOC, as expected. The pressure is increased mainly by earlier injection and a decreased turbine area. In addition, in order to maintain the NOx at the desired level the general trends are decreasing hydraulic pressure accompanied by increasing atomizer area. No clear general trend in EVC is observed, although it seems to be advanced going from low to high Pmax. Scenario 2: Tier II SFOC minimization The results show again that the increase in maximum pressure results in reduced SFOC. The reduced NOx level (Tier II) compared to the previous case (Tier I) is obtained with a low hydraulic pressure for all investigated maximum pressures. The trends in fuel nozzle hole area, EVC and TCA are similar to the previous case. The SFOC is generally higher for the Tier II case CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen compared to the Tier I case, as expected. According to the present investigations the SFOC penalty is 1.53 g/kWh, i.e. 11.7%. Scenario 3: SFOC minimization The general trends for this scenario are: retarded EVC (except for the highest pressure) and high hydraulic pressure, and an nozzle hole area centered around the zero level, although slightly increasing for increasing maximum pressure. Also the turbine area is reduced for the higher pressures. The shorter injection step length seems to be favored. Scenario 4: NOx minimization In order to get minimized NOx regardless of SFOC the general trends are large nozzle hole area, a long injection profile step length, retarded EVC, a turbine area in between the -1 and 0 level. The injection pressure is increasing for increasing maximum pressure ending at the +1 level.

Fig. 5 SFOC as a function of maximum cylinder pressure for the 4 different scenarios

Paper No. 38

Figure 7 interestingly indicates that for a given NOx emission level it is indeed possible to reduce the SFOC by increasing the maximum cylinder pressure and simultaneously reoptimising the factor settings. Again this is achieved by decreased turbine area, and decreased hydraulic pressure (at least for the higher values of NOx, at the lower end the limit of 170 bar is met for all cases).

Fig. 6 NOx as a function of Pmax for scenario 3 and 4. Scenario 1 and 2 not depicted as these are for constant NOx level Summary of scenarios 14 In Figure 5 the results of SFOC are depicted as a function of the maximum cylinder pressure for the different scenarios investigated. As seen from the figure there is a clear trend of decreasing SFOC with increasing maximum cylinder pressure. It seems as though the gradient decreases in magnitude per unit change in Pmax decrease. Figure 6 shows the results of NOx emission as a function of maximum cylinder pressure. As seen from the figure the NOx displays an almost linear trend of increasing emissions with increasing maximum pressure. Scenario 1 and 2 are not depicted since these are for constant NOx level. Clearly when NOx is minimized (scenario 4) the resulting SFOC is higher than for the SFOC minimization case (scenario 3), but the trends (slopes) are indeed comparable. Scenario 5 In this scenario the specific NOx emissions as well as the maximum cylinder pressure are constrained to be at specific values, and for each value the SFOC is minimized. This is performed for a variety of NOx levels and three levels of maximum pressure. The results are shown in Figure 7 and the optimized factor settings are presented in Figures 8-11. As seen from Figure 7 the SFOC vs. NOx trade-off is not entirely linear, in fact it seems as though the SFOC penalty increases when going to lower NOx levels, for a given maximum cylinder pressure. As seen from Figures 8, 9, and 10 the minimal SFOC for decreasing NOx is generally obtained by decreasing the hydraulic pressure and increasing the atomizer hole size, as well as decreasing turbine area. No obvious trend for the exhaust valve closing timing is observed (Figure 11), although it seems as though a retarded EVC is favorable over the entire range of emissions. CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

Fig. 7 Optimized SFOC as a function of NOx emission for different levels of Pmax Comparison with previous studies Previously an extensive test program was conducted on the same test engine in order to see the effect of systematic parameter variations [6]. The following parameters were varied: maximum cylinder pressure (through variation of SOI), compression pressure (EVC), scavenge pressure (TC area), exhaust valve closing timing, hydraulic pressure, fuel injection nozzle hole diameter, injection profile step length, injection profile scaling, and shims thickness. Whenever possible the tests were conducted with the maximum pressure, the Pcomp/Pscav ratio, the TC area, and the exhaust valve opening timing being fixed. Most of the tests were effectively carried out changing one factor at-a-time (OFAT) in contrast to a DOE approach. All in all, the way the previous tests were performed is significantly different from the way the present tests have been conducted. Nevertheless, in the following the model derived from the present DOE tests is used in order to mimic the previous tests, i.e. both Pcomp and Pscav are modelled and both the maximum pressure, as well as the Pcomp/Pscav ratio, are subject to constraints, whenever appropriate.

Paper No. 38

Fig.8 Optimal settings for injection fuel hydraulic pressure for minimized SFOC as a function of a specified NOx level

Fig. 10 Optimal TCA settings for minimized SFOC as a function of specified NOx level.

Fig.9 Optimal settings for injection fuel nozzle hole area for minimized SFOC as a function of a specified NOx level Furthermore, the model used is reduced somewhat in complexity, one reason being a desire to minimize the possibility of over-fitting. The reduced model terms are the following: SOI, EVC, TCA, Phyd, InjSt, NozzA, NozzA*NozzA, Phyd*NozzA, constant. A comparison is made between the present DOE model predictions against previous OFAT test results using the same strategy regarding performance parameter adjustment. The two methods are compared in Figure 12 by looking at the change in NOx and SFOC, respectively, for each change in parameter (OFAT). The parameter variations conducted are summarized in Table 6. It is observed that the direction (+/-) of change in both SFOC and specific NOx emission upon a parameter change is the same in both the DOE model predictions and the OFAT measurements.

Fig. 11 Optimal EVC settings for minimized SFOC as a function of specified NOx level. Especially in the case of SFOC the quantitative agreement is good as well (within experimental uncertainty, except for the most extreme case). In the case of specific NOx emission, the quantitative agreement is moderate. As in the OFAT measurements, the DOE model results predict both SFOC and specific NOx emission to decrease with decreasing Pcomp (retarded EVC) and decrease with increased Pscav. On purpose of verifying the quality of an OFAT model built on the 50 current DOE experimental tests, another DOE model - equivalent to the OFAT method - has been constructed. This model contains only the linear terms (no quadratic and no interaction terms). Results indicate that such a model can be highly unreliable, such a model having a significant lack of fit. Thus the model validity is far from 1, and for SFOC and for NOx is in fact negative, meaning that for the studied domain it possibly describes the responses dependencies in a very erroneous way. 8

CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

Paper No. 38

Fig. 12 Predicted vs. measured change in SFOC (left) and NOx (right). The measured changes are from previous (OFAT) parameter variations [6] and predicted values are from calculations using the DOE model derived in the present work.

Table 6 Model terms in the present DOE model used for the verification of the results from the previous OFAT parameter tests (results plotted in Fig. 12)
DOE model SOI 1.45 -0.39 3.35 2.58 0.2 2.75 2.2 0.67 0.59 1.23 EVC 2.84 2.94 2.71 -4.43 10.44 3.84 3.2 2.5 -0.42 2.69 TCA 45 45 45 45 45 32 45 45 45 45 Phyd 200 200 200 200 200 200 235 170 200 200 InjSt 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 15 NozzA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -35 0 Comment Reference Pmax+10 bar Fixed Pcomp/Pscav Pmax-10 bar Pcomp+10 bar Pcomp-10 bar Pscav+0.25bar Fixed Pcomp/Pscav Phyd+35 bar Phyd-35bar NozzA: -35% InjSt+2.5ms -2.6 2.7 0.8 -0.9 -0.3 -0.6 0.5 -6.2 0.5 1.1 -1.1 0.3 -0.3 -0.2 0.9 -0.9 4.3 -0.3 -1.9 2.8 1.2 -0.7 -0.5 -0.4 1 -3 0.4 0.8 -0.3 0.8 -0.7 -1 1.2 -1.3 1.5 -0.9 dSFOC [g/kWh] dNOx [g/kWh] OFAT dSFOC [g/kWh] dNOx [g/kWh]

CONCLUSIONS
The concept of design of experiments has been applied to engine tests performed on a marine low speed two-stroke test engine. A test plan with 3 level variation in 6 factors with 3 response factors (SFOC, Pmax, and NOx) containing 50 tests, excluding day-to-day reference runs, has been formulated and executed. In order to conduct the tests within a reasonable time frame the concept of fast tests has been explored. This concept involves a significant cut-down in the time allowed/required for engine stabilization between engine test and adjustments. It has been demonstrated that the stabilization time can be reduced down to approx. 3 min. (provided no change of engine load). CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

Considering the measurement time (approx. 3 min) and the time for making engine adjustment in between tests, (approx. 3 min.) it means that it is possible to perform as much as 5-6 tests per hour. A regression model is developed and it is found that it is describing adequately the measured data. This model is used in an optimization study in order to explore various scenarios, e.g. SFOC minimization within the IMO Tier I and II NOx limits. Switching from Tier I to Tier II limits comes at a SFOC penalty of approx. 1-1.7%. Scenarios including overall SFOC minimization regardless of NOx and vice versa are also investigated. Comparison with previous experiments (OFAT) reveals that by using the model derived from the 9

Paper No. 38

present experiment DOE study it is possible to qualitatively predict the effect of parameter variations in previous experiments.

Organization edition, 2006

for

Standardization,

second

NOMENCLATURE
SFOC Pmax Pcomp Pscav Phyd NOx SOI EVC TCA InjSt NozzA R2 Q2 - specific fuel oil consumption [g/kWh] - maxim cylinder pressure [bar] - cylinder pressure at TDC [bar] - scavenge pressure [bar] - hydraulic pressure [bar] - specific NOx emissions [g/kWh] - start of injection [CA] - exhaust valve closing [CA] - turbocharger area [m2] - injection profile step length [ms] - fuel nozzle hole area [mm2] - linear correlation coefficients [-] - cross validation correlation coefficient [-]

[4] Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78 Regulations for the prevention of Air pollution from ships and NOx technical code, International Marine Organization, 1998 [5] Umetrics. User guide and tutorial to MODDE. Umetrics, 9th edition, 2009 [6] Jrgensen, A. J., Various parameter tests 4T50ME-X, Technical report, Process development, MAN Diesel, Copenhagen, 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Box, G. E. P., Hunter, W. G., and Hunter, J. S.. Statistics for experimenters, WileyInterscience, 1978. Erikson, L., Johansson, E., Kettaneh-Wold, N., Wikstrm, and Wold, S., Design of Experiments. MKS Umetrics, 2008

Greek symbols - Standard deviation

Abbreviations CCF - face-centered central composite TDC - Top Dead Center OFAT - One factor at a time (method) DOE - Design of experiments MIP - mean indicated pressure CA - crank angle ECU/ CCU engine/ cylinder control unit MOB - main operation board CFD - computational fluid dynamics

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study has been made possible with the pivotal contribution of research engineer Peter Willemoes Jespersen, whose support is kindly acknowledged.

REFERENCES
[1] http://www.iav.com/us/4_events/conferences/ doe/doe_05.php [2] Andreasen, A., Internal Report LDF1-2008013, MAN Diesel Copenhagen, 2008. [3] International Standard ISO 8178-1: Reciprocating internal combustion engines Exhaust emission measurement Part 1: Test-bed measurement of gaseous and particulate exhaust emissions, International

CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

Paper No. 38

10