Search Results

As passenger cars are progressively moving towards more electrification, Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) may play a greater role. Several questions arise regarding their performance in real-world conditions, their optimal configuration - in terms of battery capacity, fuel and powertrain used - and their pollutant emissions. In this context, two PHEVs complying with Euro 6d standards were evaluated on a chassis-dyno and on-road using the same road profile, complying with RDE requirements. The two vehicles differ only by their powertrain, one being diesel-fueled, and the other being gasoline-fueled. The vehicles were tested under various conditions, including charge depleting and charge sustaining modes (i.e., tests respectively starting with a fully charged battery and a discharged battery), with various fuel compositions including traditional fossil-based fuels, 100% renewable Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) and 100% renewable gasoline, blended with 20% v/v ethanol (E20).

Blends of gasoline, diesel fuel and ethanol (“dieseline”) have shown promise in engine studies examining low temperature combustion using compression ignition. They offer the possibility of high efficiency combined with low emissions of oxides of nitrogen and soot. However, unlike gasoline or diesel fuel alone, such mixtures can be flammable in the headspace above the liquid in a vehicle fuel tank at common ambient temperatures. Quantifying their flammability characteristics is important if these fuels are to see commercial service. The parameter of most interest is the Upper Flammable Limit (UFL) temperature, below which the headspace vapour is flammable. In earlier work a mathematical model to predict the flammability of dieseline blends, including those containing ethanol, was developed and validated experimentally. It was then used to study the flammability of a wide variety of dieseline blends parametrically.

Substantial advances in European road vehicle emissions have been achieved over the past 3 decades driven by strengthening revisions in emissions legislation and enabled by advances in fuel, vehicle engine and emissions control technologies. As both vehicle technology and emissions legislation in Europe continue to evolve, Concawe has conducted a study to examine the opportunities that fuels can provide to further reduce emissions from light-duty diesel passenger cars. Three European diesel cars spanning Euro 5, Euro 6b and Euro 6d-TEMP emissions certification levels have been tested over the cold-start WLTC (Worldwide harmonized Light-duty Test Cycle) with 6 fuels: an EN590-compliant B5 (petroleum diesel containing 5% biodiesel by volume), a bio-derived paraffinic diesel, a 50:50 blend of the aforementioned fuels, a low density petroleum-derived B5, a B30 and the same B30 additized with a high dose of cetane number improver.

With increased awareness and scrutiny of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the heavy-duty truck industry is on the lookout for solutions that can maximize GHG savings, through either lowering fuel consumption and lowering methane slip. This paper focuses on whether it is possible to provide a differentiated Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) that supports the further improvement of a High-Pressure Direct Injection (HPDI) Engine. Desired improvements from this LNG blend are the lowering or substitution of the pilot Diesel use of the current HPDI engine, the lowering of the raw exhaust gas methane concentration and any additional performance improvements. Sixty-five substances were identified that could potentially be blended into cryogenic methane thus creating a differentiated LNG fuel.

A practical Gasoline Compression Ignition (GCI) concept is presented that works on standard European 95 RON E10 gasoline over the whole speed/load range. A spark is employed to assist the gasoline autoignition at low loads; this avoids the requirement of a complex cam profile to control the local mixture temperature for reliable autoignition. The combustion phasing is controlled by the injection pattern and timing, and a sufficient degree of stratification is needed to control the maximum rate of pressure rise and prevent knock. With active control of the swirl level, the combustion system is found to be relatively robust against variability in charge motion, and subtle differences in fuel reactivity. Results show that the new concept can achieve very low fuel consumption over a significant portion of the speed/load map, equivalent to diesel efficiency. The efficiency is worse than an equivalent diesel engine only at low load where the combustion assistance operates.

Low Temperature Combustion using compression ignition may provide high efficiency combined with low emissions of oxides of nitrogen and soot. This process is facilitated by fuels with lower cetane number than standard diesel fuel. Mixtures of gasoline and diesel (“dieseline”) may be one way of achieving this; however, a gasoline/diesel mixture in a fuel tank can result in a flammable headspace, particularly at very cold ambient temperatures. A mathematical model to predict the flammability of dieseline blends, including those containing ethanol, was previously validated. In this paper, that model is used to study the flammability of dieseline blends parametrically. Gasolines used in the simulations had Dry Vapour Pressure Equivalent (DVPE) values of 45, 60, 75, 90 and 110 kPa.

In recent years, boosted and downsized engines have gained much attention as a promising technology to improve fuel economy; however, knocking is a common issue of such engines that requires attention. To understand the knocking phenomenon under downsized and boosted engine conditions deeply, fuels with different Research Octane Number (RON) and Motor Octane Number (MON) were prepared, and the knocking performances of these fuels were evaluated using a single cylinder engine, operated under a variety of conditions. Experimental results showed that the knocking performance at boosted conditions depend on both RON and MON. While higher RON showed better anti-knocking performance, lower MON showed better anti-knocking performance. Furthermore, the tendency for a reduced MON to be beneficial became stronger at lower engine speeds and higher boost pressures, in agreement with previously published modelling work.

Stringent regulations on fuel economy have driven major innovative changes in the internal combustion engine design. (E.g. CAFE fuel economy standards of 54.5 mpg by 2025 in the U.S) Vehicle manufacturers have implemented engine infrastructure changes such as downsizing, direct injection, higher compression ratios and turbo-charging/super-charging to achieve higher engine efficiencies. Fuel properties therefore, have to align with these engine changes in order to fully exploit the possible benefits. Fuel octane number is a key metric that enables high fuel efficiency in an engine. Greater resistance to auto-ignition (knock) of the fuel/air mixture allows engines to be operated at a higher compression ratio for a given quantity of intake charge without severely retarding the spark timing resulting in a greater torque per mass of fuel burnt. This attribute makes a high octane fuel a favorable hydrocarbon choice for modern high efficiency engines that aim for higher fuel economy.

Low Temperature Combustion using compression ignition may provide high efficiency combined with low emissions of oxides of nitrogen and soot. This process is facilitated by fuels with lower cetane number than standard diesel fuel. Mixtures of gasoline and diesel (“dieseline”) may be one way of achieving this, but a practical concern is the flammability of the headspace vapours in the vehicle fuel tank. Gasoline is much more volatile than diesel so, at most ambient temperatures, the headspace vapours in the tank are too rich to burn. A gasoline/diesel mixture in a fuel tank therefore can result in a flammable headspace, particularly at cold ambient temperatures. A mathematical model is presented that predicts the flammability of the headspace vapours in a tank containing mixtures of gasoline and diesel fuel. Fourteen hydrocarbons and ethanol represent the volatile components. Heavier components are treated as non-volatile diluents in the liquid phase.

In Gasoline Direct Injection engines, direct exposure of the injector to the flame can cause combustion products to accumulate on the nozzle, which can result in increased particulate emissions. This research observes the impact of injector fouling on particulate emissions and the associated injector spray pattern and shows how both can be reversed by utilising fuel detergency. For this purpose multi-hole injectors were deliberately fouled in a four-cylinder test engine with two different base fuels. During a four hour injector fouling cycle particulate numbers (PN) increased by up to two orders of magnitude. The drift could be reversed by switching to a fuel blend that contained a detergent additive. In addition, it was possible to completely avoid any PN increase, when the detergent containing fuel was used from the beginning of the test. Microscopy showed that increased injector fouling coincided with increased particulate emissions.

The market share of Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) vehicles has been increasing, promoted by its positive contribution to the overall fleet fuel economy improvement. It has however been reported that this type of engine is emitting more ultrafine particles than the Euro 6c Particle Number (PN) limit of 6·1011 particles/km that will be introduced in Europe as of September 2017 in parallel with the Real Driving Emission (RDE) procedure. The emissions performance of a Euro 6b GDI passenger car was measured, first in the OEM build without a Gasoline Particulate Filter (GPF) and then as a demonstrator with a coated GPF in the underfloor position. Regulated emissions were measured on the European regulatory test cycles NEDC and WLTC and in real-world conditions with Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS) according to the published European RDE procedure (Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/427 and 2016/646).

In light of increasingly stringent CO2 emission targets, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) have been driven to develop engines which deliver improved combustion efficiency and reduce energy losses. In spark ignition engines one strategy which can be used to reach this goal is the full utilization of fuel octane number. Octane number is the fuel´s knock resistance and is characterized as research octane number (RON) and motor octane number (MON). Engine knock is caused by the undesired self-ignition of the fuel air mixture ahead of the flame front initiated by the spark. It leads to pressure fluctuations that can severely damage the engine. Modern vehicles utilize different strategies to avoid knock. One extreme strategy assumes a weak fuel quality and, to protect the engine, retards the spark timing at the expense of combustion efficiency. The other extreme carefully detects knock in every engine cycle and retards the spark timing only when knock is detected.

Research Octane Number (RON) and Motor Octane Number (MON) are used to describe gasoline combustion which describe antiknock performance under different conditions. Recent literature suggests that MON is less important than RON in modern cars and a relaxation in the MON specification could improve vehicle performance. At the same time, for the same octane number change, increasing RON appears to provide more benefit to engine power and acceleration than reducing MON. Some workers have advocated the use of an octane index (OI) which incorporates both parameters instead of either RON or MON to give an indication of gasoline knock resistance. Previous Concawe work investigated the effect of RON and MON on the power and acceleration performance of two Euro 4 gasoline passenger cars during an especially-designed acceleration test cycle.

This paper investigates the effect of the cetane number (CN) of a diesel fuel on the energy balance between a light duty (1.9L) and medium duty (4.5L) diesel engine. The two engines have a similar stroke to bore (S/B) ratio, and all other control parameters including: geometric compression ratio, cylinder number, stroke, and combustion chamber, have been kept the same, meaning that only the displacement changes between the engine platforms. Two Coordinating Research Council (CRC) diesel fuels for advanced combustion engines (FACE) were studied. The two fuels were selected to have a similar distillation profile and aromatic content, but varying CN. The effects on the energy balance of the engines were considered at two operating conditions; a “low load” condition of 1500 rev/min (RPM) and nominally 1.88 bar brake mean effective pressure (BMEP), and a “medium load” condition of 1500 RPM and 5.65 BMEP.

Modern spark ignition engines can take advantage of better fuel octane quality either towards improving acceleration performance or fuel economy via an active ignition management system. Higher fuel octane allows for spark timing advance and consequently higher torque output and higher engine efficiency. Additionally, engines can be designed with higher compression ratios if a higher anti-knock quality fuel is used. Due to historical reasons, Research Octane (RON) and Motor Octane Number (MON) are the metrics used to characterize the anti-knock quality of a fuel. The test conditions used to compute RON and MON correlated well with those in older engines designed about 20 years ago. But the correlation has drifted considerably in the recent past due to advances in engine infrastructures mainly governed by stringent fuel economy and emission standards.

Gasoline Compression Ignition (GCI) has been identified as a technology which could give both high efficiency and relatively low engine-out emissions. The introduction of any new vehicle technology requires widespread availability of appropriate fuels. It would be ideal therefore if GCI vehicles were able to operate using the standard grade of gasoline that is available at the pump. However, in spite of recent progress, operation at idle and low loads still remains a formidable challenge, given the relatively low autoignition reactivity of conventional gasoline at these conditions. One conceivable solution would be to use both diesel and gasoline, either in separate tanks or blended as a single fuel (“dieseline”). However, with this latter option, a major concern for dieseline would be whether a flammable mixture could exist in the vapour space in the fuel tank.

Certain diesel fuel specification properties are considered to be environmental parameters according to the European Fuels Quality Directive (FQD, 2009/EC/30) and previous regulations. These limits included in the EN 590 specification were derived from the European Programme on Emissions, Fuels and Engine Technologies (EPEFE) which was carried out in the 1990’s on diesel vehicles meeting Euro 2 emissions standards. These limits could potentially constrain FAME blending levels higher than 7% v/v. In addition, no significant work has been conducted since to investigate whether relaxing these limits would give rise to performance or emissions debits or fuel consumption benefits in more modern vehicles. The objective of this test programme was to evaluate the impact of specific diesel properties on emissions and fuel consumption in Euro 4, Euro 5 and Euro 6 light-duty diesel vehicle technologies.

Octane appetite of modern engines has changed as engine designs have evolved to meet performance, emissions, fuel economy and other demands. The octane appetite of seven modern vehicles was studied in accordance with the octane index equation OI=RON-KS, where K is an operating condition specific constant and S is the fuel sensitivity (RONMON). Engines with a displacement of 2.0L and below and different combinations of boosting, fuel injection, and compression ratios were tested using a decorrelated RONMON matrix of eight fuels. Power and acceleration performance were used to determine the K values for corresponding operating points. Previous studies have shown that vehicles manufactured up to 20 years ago mostly exhibited negative K values and the fuels with higher RON and higher sensitivity tended to perform better.

Most modern high-pressure common rail diesel fuel injection systems employ an internal pressure equalization system in order to support needle lift, enabling precise control of the injected fuel mass. This results in the return of a fraction of the high-pressure diesel back to the fuel tank. The diesel fuel flow occurring in the injector spill passages is expected to be a cavitating flow, which is known to promote fuel ageing. The cavitation of diesel promotes nano-particle formation through induced pyrolysis and oxidation, which may result in deposits in the vehicle fuel system. A purpose-built high-pressure cavitation flow rig has been employed to investigate the stability of unadditised crude-oil derived diesel and paraffin-blend model diesel, which were subjected to continuous hydrodynamic cavitation flow across a single-hole research diesel nozzle.

High-speed planar laser Mie scattering and Laser Induced Fluorescence (PLIF) were employed for the determination of Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD) distribution in non-evaporating diesel sprays. The effect of rail pressure, distillation profile, and consequent fuel viscosity on the drop size distribution developing during primary and secondary atomization was investigated. Samples of conventional crude-oil derived middle-distillate diesel and light distillate kerosene were delivered into an optically accessible mini-sac injector, using a customized high-pressure common rail diesel fuel injection system. Two optical channels were employed to capture images of elastic Mie and inelastic LIF scattering simultaneously on a high-speed video camera at 10 kHz. Results are presented for sprays obtained at maximum needle lift during the injection. These reveal that the emergent sprays exhibit axial asymmetry and vorticity.