Search Results

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.

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.