Search Results

Reactivity-controlled compression ignition (RCCI) has been shown to be capable of providing improved engine efficiencies coupled with the benefit of low emissions via in-cylinder fuel blending. Much of the previous body of work has studied the benefits of RCCI operation using high injection pressures (e.g., 500 bar or greater) with common rail injection (CRI) hardware. However, low-pressure fueling technology is capable of providing significant cost savings. Due to the broad market adoption of gasoline direct injection (GDI) fueling systems, a market-type prototype GDI injector was selected for this study. Single-cylinder light-duty engine experiments were undertaken to examine the performance and emissions characteristics of the RCCI combustion strategy with low-pressure GDI technology and compared against high injection pressure RCCI operation. Gasoline and diesel were used as the low-reactivity and high-reactivity fuels, respectively.

A single-cylinder light-duty diesel engine was used to investigate dual fuel reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) operated with two different fuel combinations: gasoline/diesel fuel and methanol/diesel fuel. The engine was operated over a range of conditions, from 1500 to 2300 rpm and 3.5 to 17 bar gross IMEP. Using the stock re-entrant piston bowl geometry, both fuel combinations were able to achieve low NOx and PM emissions with a peak gross indicated efficiency of 48%. However, at light load conditions both gasoline and methanol yielded poorer combustion efficiencies. Previous studies have shown that the high-levels of piston induced mixing that are created by the stock piston are not required, and in fact are detrimental due to increased heat transfer losses, for premixed combustion. Thus a modified piston featuring a shallow, flat piston bowl with nearly no squish land was also investigated.

The focus of the present study was to characterize the fuel reactivity of high octane number fuels (i.e., low fuel reactivity), namely gasoline, ethanol, and methanol when mixed with cetane improvers under lean, premixed combustion conditions. Two commercially available cetane improvers, 2-ethylhexyl nitrate and di-tert-butyl peroxide, were used in the study. First, blends of the primary reference fuels iso-octane and n-heptane were port injected under fixed operating conditions. The resulting combustion phasings were used to generate effective PRF number maps. Then, blends of the aforementioned base fuels and cetane improvers were tested under the same lean premixed conditions as the PRF blends. Based on the combustion phasing results of the base fuel and cetane improver mixture, the effective PRF number, or octane number, could be determined.