Search Results

Low temperature combustion through in-cylinder blending of fuels with different reactivity offers the potential to improve engine efficiency while yielding low engine-out NOx and soot emissions. A Navistar MaxxForce 13 heavy-duty compression ignition engine was modified to run with two separate fuel systems, aiming to utilize fuel reactivity to demonstrate a technical path towards high engine efficiency. The dual-fuel engine has a geometric compression ratio of 14 and uses sequential, multi-port-injection of a low reactivity fuel in combination with in-cylinder direct injection of diesel. Through control of in-cylinder charge reactivity and reactivity stratification, the engine combustion process can be tailored towards high efficiency and low engine-out emissions. Engine testing was conducted at 1200 rpm over a load sweep.

Heat loss through wall boundaries play a dominant role in the overall performance and efficiency of internal combustion engines. Typical engine simulations use constant temperature wall boundary conditions [1, 2, 3]. These boundary conditions cannot be estimated accurately from experiments due to the complexities involved with engine combustion. As a result, they introduce a large uncertainty in engine simulations and serve as a tuning parameter. Modeling the process of heat transfer through the solid walls in an unsteady engine computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation can lead to the development of higher fidelity engine models. These models can be used to study the impact of heat loss on engine efficiency and explore new design methodologies that can reduce heat losses. In this work, a single cylinder diesel engine is modeled along with the solid piston coupled to the fluid domain.

Their easy availability, lower well-to-wheel emissions, and relative ease of use with existing engine technologies have made ethanol and ethanol-gasoline blends a viable alternative to gasoline for use in spark-ignition (SI) engines. The lower energy density of ethanol and ethanol-gasoline blends, however, results in higher volumetric fuel consumption compared with gasoline. Also, the higher latent heat of vaporization can result in cold-start issues with higher-level ethanol blends. On the other hand, a higher octane number, which indicates resistance to knock and potentially enables more optimal combustion phasing, results in better engine efficiency, especially at higher loads. This paper compares the fuel consumption and emissions of two ethanol blends (E50 and E85) with those for gasoline when used in conventional (non-hybrid) and power-split-type plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).