Search Results

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.

The challenges of flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) emissions measurements have recently come to the forefront for the emissions testing community. The proliferation of ethanol blended gasoline in fractions as high as 85% has placed a new challenge in the path of accurate measures of NMHC and NMOG emissions. Test methods need modification to cope with excess amounts of water in the exhaust, assure transfer and capture of oxygenated compounds to integrated measurement systems (impinger and cartridge measurements) and provide modal emission rates of oxygenated species. Current test methods fall short of addressing these challenges. This presentation will discuss the challenges to FFV testing, modifications made to Ford Motor Company’s Vehicle Emissions Research Laboratory test cells, and demonstrate the improvements in recovery of oxygenated species from the vehicle exhaust system for both regulatory measurements and development measurements.

Engine dynamometer testing was performed comparing E10, E20, and E30 splash-blended fuels in a Ford 3.5L EcoBoost direct injection (DI) turbocharged engine. The engine was tested with compression ratios (CRs) of 10.0:1 (current production) and 11.9:1. In this engine, E20 (96 RON) fuel at 11.9:1 CR gave very similar knock performance to E10 (91 RON) fuel at 10:1 CR. Similarly, E30 (101 RON) fuel at 11.9:1 CR resulted in knock-limited performance equivalent to E20 at 10:1 CR, indicating that E30 could have been run at even higher CR with acceptable knock behavior. The data was used in a vehicle simulation of a 3.5L EcoBoost pickup truck, which showed that the E20 (96 RON) fuel at 11.9:1 CR offers 5% improvement in U.S. EPA Metro-Highway (M/H) and US06 Highway cycle tank-to-wheels CO₂ emissions over the E10 fuel, with comparable volumetric fuel economy (miles per gallon) and range before refueling.

Future LEV-III tailpipe (TP) emission regulations pose an enormous challenge forcing the fleet average of light-duty vehicles produced in the 2025 model year to perform at the super ultralow emission vehicle (SULEV-30) certification levels (versus less than 20% produced today). To achieve SULEV-30, regulated TP emissions of non-methane organic gas (NMOG) hydrocarbons (HCs) and oxygenates plus oxides of nitrogen (NOx) must be below a combined 30 mg/mi (18.6 mg/km) standard as measured on the federal emissions certification cycle (FTP-75). However, when flex-fuel vehicles use E85 fuel instead of gasoline, NMOG emissions at cold start are nearly doubled, before the catalytic converter is active. Passive HC traps (HCTs) are a potential solution to reduce TP NMOG emissions. The conventional HCT design was modified by changing the zeolite chemistry so as to improve HC retention coupled with more efficient combustion during the desorption phase.

In the development of HC traps (HCT) for reducing vehicle cold start hydrocarbon (HC)/nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, zeolite-based adsorbent materials were studied as key components for the capture and release of the main gasoline-type HC/NOx species in the vehicle exhaust gas. Typical zeolite materials capture and release certain HC and NOx species at low temperatures (<200°C), which is lower than the light-off temperature of a typical three-way catalyst (TWC) (≥250°C). Therefore, a zeolite alone is not effective in enhancing cold start HC/NOx emission control. We have found that a small amount of Pd (<0.5 wt%) dispersed in the zeolite (i.e., BEA) can significantly increase the conversion efficiency of certain HC/NOx species by increasing their release temperature. Pd was also found to modify the adsorption process from pure physisorption to chemisorption and may have played a role in the transformation of the adsorbed HCs to higher molecular weight species.

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.

CAI combustion has the potential to be the most clean combustion technology in internal combustion engines and is being intensively researched. Following the previous research on CAI combustion of gasoline fuel, systematic investigation is being carried out on the application of bio-fuels in CAI combustion. As part of an on-going research project, CAI combustion of methanol and ethanol was studied on a single-cylinder direct gasoline engine with an air-assisted injector. The CAI combustion was achieved by trapping part of burnt gas within the cylinder through using short-duration camshafts and early closure of the exhaust valves. During the experiment the engine speed was varied from 1200rpm to 2100rpm and the air/fuel ratio was altered from the stoichiometry to the misfire limit. Their combustion characteristics were obtained by analysing cylinder pressure trace.

One-dimensional single-zone and two-zone analyses have been exercised to calculate the mass fraction burned in an engine operating on ethanol/gasoline-blended fuels using the cylinder pressure and volume data. The analyses include heat transfer and crevice volume effects on the calculated mass fraction burned. A comparison between the two methods is performed starting from the derivation of conservation of energy and the method to solve the mass fraction burned rates through the results including detailed explanation of the observed differences and trends. The apparent heat release method is used as a point of reference in the comparison process. Both models are solved using the LU matrix factorization and first-order Euler integration.

A model has been developed to predict quantitatively the results of the ASTM D86 fuel distillation procedure. The model uses material and energy balances to treat the procedure as a two stage unsteady-state distillation coupled with an air-filled continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR). Heat is removed from the second stage to simulate convection losses from the experimental apparatus. The model requires as inputs the fuel composition and the physical properties of all components (vapor phase heat capacity, vapor pressure, critical properties, density, molecular weight, solubility parameter). Correlations were used to approximate other needed properties. Liquid-phase activity coefficients were calculated with the UNIFAC model. Heat losses were modeled with a correlation from the literature. The model was validated by comparing predictions to experimental measurements on a seven-component model fuel. Agreement was extremely good across the entire range of volume fractions distilled.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established a new Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) requiring increased biofuel use (through 2022) and greater fuel economy (through 2030) for the US light-duty vehicle (LDV) fleet. Ethanol from corn and cellulose is expected to supply most of the biofuel and be used in blends with gasoline. A model was developed to assess the potential impact of these mandates on the US LDV fleet. Sensitivity to assumptions regarding future diesel prevalence, fuel economy, ethanol supply, ethanol blending options, availability of flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs), and extent of E85 use was assessed. With no E85 use, we estimate that the national-average ethanol blend level would need to rise from E5 in 2007 to approximately E10 in 2012 and E24 in 2022. Nearly all (97%) US gasoline LDVs were not designed to operate with blends greater than E10. FFVs are designed to use ethanol blends up to E85 but comprise only 3% of the fleet.

Ethanol is one of many alternative transportation fuels that can be burned in internal combustion engines in the same ways as gasoline and diesel. Compared to hydrogen and electric energy, ethanol is very similar to gasoline in many aspects and can be delivered to end-users by the same infrastructures. It can be produced from biomass and is considered renewable. It is expected that the improvement in fuels over the next 20 years will be by blending biomass-based fuels with fossil fuels using existing technologies in present-day automobiles with only minor modifications, even though the overall costs of using biomass-based fuels are still considerably higher than conventional fuels. Ethanol may represent a significant alternative fuel source, especially during the transition from fossil-based fuels to more exotic power sources. Mapping engines for flexible fuel vehicles (FFV), however, would be very costly and time consuming, even with the help of model-based engine mapping (MBM).

Ethanol has a high octane rating and can be added to gasoline to produce high octane fuel blends. Understanding the octane increase with ethanol blending is of great fundamental and practical importance. Potential issues with fuel flow rate and fuel vaporization have led to questions of the accuracy of octane measurements for ethanol-gasoline blends with moderate to high ethanol content (e.g., E20-E85) using the Cooperative Fuel Research (CFR™) engine. The nonlinearity of octane ratings with volumetric ethanol content makes it difficult to assess the accuracy of such measurements. In the present study, Research Octane Number (RON) and Motor Octane Number (MON) were measured for a matrix of ethanol-gasoline blends spanning a wide range of ethanol content (E0, E10, E20, E30, E50, E75) in a set of gasoline blendstocks spanning a range of RON values (82, 88, 92, and 95). Octane ratings for neat ethanol, denatured ethanol, and hydrous ethanol were also measured.

The characteristics of combustion knock metrics over a number of engine cycles can be an essential reference for knock detection and control in internal combustion engines. In a Spark-Ignition (SI) engine, the stochastic nature of combustion knock has been shown to follow a log-normal distribution. However, this has been derived from experiments done with gasoline only and applicability of log-normal distribution to dual-fuel combustion knock has not been explored. To evaluate the effectiveness and accuracy of log-normal distributed knock model for methane-gasoline blended fuel, a sweep of methane-gasoline blend ratio was conducted at two different engine speeds. Experimental investigation was conducted on a single cylinder prototype SI engine equipped with two fuel systems: a direct injection (DI) system for gasoline and a port fuel injection (PFI) system for methane.

Higher carbon number alcohols offer an opportunity to meet the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) and improve the energy content, petroleum displacement, and/or knock resistance of gasoline-alcohol blends from traditional ethanol blends such as E10 while maintaining desired and regulated fuel properties. Part II of this paper builds upon the alcohol selection, fuel implementation scenarios, criteria target values, and property prediction methodologies detailed in Part I. For each scenario, optimization schemes include maximizing energy content, knock resistance, or petroleum displacement. Optimum blend composition is very sensitive to energy content, knock resistance, vapor pressure, and oxygen content criteria target values. Iso-propanol is favored in both scenarios' suitable blends because of its high RON value.

The U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) requires an increase in the use of advanced biofuels up to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Longer chain alcohols, in addition to cellulosic ethanol and synthetic biofuels, could be used to meet this demand while adhering to the RFS2 corn-based ethanol limitation. Higher carbon number alcohols can be utilized to improve the energy content, knock resistance, and/or petroleum displacement of gasoline-alcohol blends compared to traditional ethanol blends such as E10 while maintaining desired and regulated fuel properties. Part I of this paper focuses on the development of scenarios by which to compare higher alcohol fuel blends to traditional ethanol blends. It also details the implementation of fuel property prediction methods adapted from literature. Possible combinations of eight alcohols mixed with a gasoline blendstock were calculated and the properties of the theoretical fuel blends were predicted.

A 22 hour engine test was developed to evaluate the effects of fuels, lubricants, and valvetrain dynamics on the wear of OHC 2.3L engine camshafts and finger followers. Procedures include a break-in to improve test repeatability and a test sequence to allow single-shift operation. A surface analyzer capable of measuring cam lobe wear profiles to micro-inch accuracy provided a quantitative wear comparison. A pure mineral oil, as expected, resulted in higher camshaft wear than using a fully formulated SF lubricant. Cam and follower wear increased significantly when ethanol replaced gasoline as fuel. The combination of ethanol, mineral oil and heavy duty valve springs was selected to increase test severity for hardware discrimination. The average wear of the intake lobes was greater than the exhausts. Kinematic analysis and visual inspection of the valve train mechanism revealed differences in the relative motion and contact stress pattern.

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.

The differences in hydrocarbons (HCs) emitted by gasoline (E0) and ethanol (EtOH) blend fuels from flex-fuel capable engines can lead to differences in the performance of aftertreatment devices. Vehicle emission results have shown either better performance on E0 compared to E85 or vice versa, dependent on the vehicle calibration. In order to separate the impact of the vehicle and the catalyst, a laboratory study was conducted to evaluate performance on a pulse-flame (pulsator) reactor and compare reactivity towards E0 and E85 (85% EtOH-15% E0) exhaust. The catalysts evaluated were substrate-only, washcoat-only and fully formulated catalysts that had been aged either on a pulsator reactor or dynamometer engine. Catalyst performance was evaluated with light-off tests utilizing both slow and fast temperature ramp rates.

When fuel at elevated temperatures is injected into an ambient environment at a pressure lower than the saturation pressure of the fuel, the fuel vaporizes in the nozzle and/or immediately upon exiting the nozzle; that is, it undergoes flash boiling. It is characterized by a two-phase flow regime co-located with primary breakup, which significantly affects the spray characteristics. Under flash boiling conditions, the near nozzle spray angle increases, which can lead to shorter penetration because of increased entrainment. In a multi-hole injector this can cause other impacts downstream resulting from the increased plume to plume interactions. To study the effect of injector temperature and injection pressure with real fuels, an experimental investigation of the spray characteristics of a summer grade gasoline fuel with 10% ethanol (E10) was conducted in an optically accessible constant volume spray vessel.

This paper presents a study performed in 10 vehicles available in Brazilian market where the drivability with ethanol and gasoline, also referred as gasohol were compared. The motivation for this work came from the constant competition of the automotive industry, where engineers are searching for ways to improve the quality of the products aiming the “best in class” drivability with the best cost efficiency. For the Brazilian market, a further complexity is added to the development and verification process, which is the need to design and verify the controls and calibration considering the two fuels available in the market, the ethanol and the gasoline. In order to determine how the drivability is impacted by the ethanol, the paper presents a study where the drivability data were generated using the objective drivability measurement system AVL-DRIVE™.