Search Results

Modification of gasoline blendstock composition in preparing ethanol-gasoline blends has a significant impact on vehicle exhaust emissions. In “splash” blending the blendstock is fixed, ethanol-gasoline blend compositions are clearly defined, and effects on emissions are relatively straightforward to interpret. In “match” blending the blendstock composition is modified for each ethanol-gasoline blend to match one or more fuel properties. The effects on emissions depend on which fuel properties are matched and what modifications are made, making trends difficult to interpret. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that exclusive use of a match blending approach has fundamental flaws. For typical gasolines without ethanol, the distillation profile is a smooth, roughly linear relationship of temperature vs. percent fuel distilled.

Engine dynamometer testing was performed comparing fuels having different octane ratings and ethanol content in a Ford 3.5L direct injection turbocharged (EcoBoost) engine at three compression ratios (CRs). The fuels included midlevel ethanol “splash blend” and “octane-matched blend” fuels, E10-98RON (U.S. premium), and E85-108RON. For the splash blends, denatured ethanol was added to E10-91RON, which resulted in E20-96RON and E30-101 RON. For the octane-matched blends, gasoline blendstocks were formulated to maintain constant RON and MON for E10, E20, and E30. The match blend E20-91RON and E30-91RON showed no knock benefit compared to the baseline E10-91RON fuel. However, the splash blend E20-96RON and E10-98RON enabled 11.9:1 CR with similar knock performance to E10-91RON at 10:1 CR. The splash blend E30-101RON enabled 13:1 CR with better knock performance than E10-91RON at 10:1 CR. As expected, E85-108RON exhibited dramatically better knock performance than E30-101RON.

This paper provides an overview of the effects of blending ethanol with gasoline for use in spark ignition engines. The overview is written from the perspective of considering a future ethanol-gasoline blend for use in vehicles that have been designed to accommodate such a fuel. Therefore discussion of the effects of ethanol-gasoline blends on older legacy vehicles is not included. As background, highlights of future emissions regulations are discussed. The effects on fuel properties of blending ethanol and gasoline are described. The substantial increase in knock resistance and full load performance associated with the addition of ethanol to gasoline is illustrated with example data. Aspects of fuel efficiency enabled by increased ethanol content are reviewed, including downsizing and downspeeding opportunities, increased compression ratio, fundamental effects associated with ethanol combustion, and reduced enrichment requirement at high speed/high load conditions.

Ethanol and other high heat of vaporization (HoV) fuels result in substantial cooling of the fresh charge, especially in direct injection (DI) engines. The effect of charge cooling combined with the inherent high chemical octane of ethanol make it a very knock resistant fuel. Currently, the knock resistance of a fuel is characterized by the Research Octane Number (RON) and the Motor Octane Number (MON). However, the RON and MON tests use carburetion for fuel metering and thus likely do not replicate the effect of charge cooling for DI engines. The operating conditions of the RON and MON tests also do not replicate the very retarded combustion phasing encountered with modern boosted DI engines operating at low-speed high-load. In this study, the knock resistance of a matrix of ethanol-gasoline blends was determined in a state-of-the-art single cylinder engine equipped with three separate fuel systems: upstream, pre-vaporized fuel injection (UFI); port fuel injection (PFI); and DI.

It has been previously reported that ethanol can be reformed at around 300°C to a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane using copper-plated nickel catalyst. This low reforming temperature enables heat to be supplied from the engine exhaust. Single-cylinder engine testing demonstrated that this gaseous mixture of "ethanol reformate" enhances engine combustion and part load dilution capability, which decreases fuel consumption while also reducing feedgas NOx emissions. In addition, excellent cold start capability with significantly reduced hydrocarbon emissions was observed. Thus, ethanol reformate has the potential to address two major barriers to wider use of ethanol as an engine fuel: ethanol's low heating value per volume and higher hydrocarbon emissions at startup relative to gasoline. In this study, the dilute capability of a multi-cylinder engine was assessed using a mixture of 50% reformate and 50% E85 on a mass basis at several key part load operating points.

Ford Motor Company is introducing “EcoBoost” gasoline turbocharged direct injection (GTDI) engine technology in the 2010 Lincoln MKS. A logical enhancement of EcoBoost technology is the use of E85 for knock mitigation. The subject of this paper is the optimal use of E85 by using two fuel systems in the same EcoBoost engine: port fuel injection (PFI) of gasoline and direct injection (DI) of E85. Gasoline PFI is used for starting and light-medium load operation, while E85 DI is used only as required during high load operation to avoid knock. Direct injection of E85 (a commercially available blend of ∼85% ethanol and ∼15% gasoline) is extremely effective in suppressing knock, due to ethanol's high inherent octane and its high heat of vaporization, which results in substantial cooling of the charge. As a result, the compression ratio (CR) can be increased and higher boost levels can be used.

In order to improve fuel economy, engine manufacturers are investigating various technologies that reduce pumping work in spark ignition engines. Current cylinder pressure analysis methods do not allow valid comparison of pumping work reduction strategies. Existing methods neglect valve timing effects which occur during the expansion and compression strokes, but are actually part of the gas exchange process. These additional pumping work contributions become more significant when evaluating non-standard valve timing concepts. This paper outlines a new analysis method for calculating the pumping work and indicated work of a 4-stroke internal combustion engine. Corrections to PMEP and IMEP are introduced which allow the valid comparison of pumping work and indicated efficiency between engines with different pumping work reduction strategies.

Variable cam timing strategies which utilize retard of the intake and exhaust valve events at part load have been previously shown to provide improved fuel consumption and feedgas NOx. These benefits can be increased by enhancing the combustion system with variable charge motion. A variable event duration valvetrain was simulated on engine dynamometer by running a series of short duration/low lift intake valve events. The fuel consumption benefit for this simulated variable event valvetrain is compared to that of dual retard VCT with variable charge motion. An estimated upper limit for the fuel consumption improvement potential of variable valve timing is presented. This upper limit includes both pumping work reduction and indicated efficiency improvement with high levels of exhaust residual dilution. The measured benefits of dual retard VCT and of the variable event valvetrain are compared to the estimated upper limit.

Data from two engines with distinct stratified-charge combustion systems are presented. One uses an air-forced injection system with a bowl-in-piston combustion chamber. The other is a liquid-only, high-pressure injection system which uses fluid dynamics coupled with a shaped piston to achieve stratification. The fuel economy and emission characteristics were very similar despite significant hardware differences. The contributions of indicated thermal efficiency, mechanical friction, and pumping work to fuel economy are investigated to elucidate where the efficiency gains exist and in which categories further improvements are possible. Emissions patterns and combustion phasing characteristics of stratified-charge combustion are also discussed.