Search Results

Automakers are designing smaller displacement engines with higher power densities to improve vehicle fuel economy, while continuing to meet customer expectations for power and drivability. The specific power produced by the spark-ignited engine is constrained by knock and fuel octane. Whereas the lowest octane rating is 87 AKI (antiknock index) for regular gasoline at most service stations throughout the U.S., 85 AKI fuel is widely available at higher altitudes especially in the mountain west states. The objective of this study was to explore the effect of gasoline octane rating on the net power produced by modern light duty vehicles at high altitude (1660 m elevation). A chassis dynamometer test procedure was developed to measure absorbed wheel power at transient and stabilized full power operation. Five vehicles were tested using 85 and 87 AKI fuels.

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.

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.

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.

Combustion in modern spark-ignition (SI) engines is increasingly knock-limited with the wide adoption of downsizing and turbocharging technologies. Fuel autoignition conditions are different in these engines compared to the standard Research Octane Number (RON) and Motor Octane Numbers (MON) tests. The Octane Index, OI = RON - K(RON-MON), has been proposed as a means to characterize the actual fuel anti-knock performance in modern engines. The K-factor, by definition equal to 0 and 1 for the RON and MON tests respectively, is intended to characterize the deviation of modern engine operation from these standard octane tests. Accurate knowledge of K is of central importance to the OI model; however, a single method for determining K has not been well accepted in the literature.

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.

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.

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.

This paper presents a numerical study of trace knocking combustion of ethanol/gasoline blends in a modern, single cylinder SI engine. Results are compared to experimental data from a prior, published work [1]. The engine is modeled using GT-Power and a two-zone combustion model containing detailed kinetic models. The two zone model uses a gasoline surrogate model [2] combined with a sub-model for nitric oxide (NO) [3] to simulate end-gas autoignition. Upstream, pre-vaporized fuel injection (UFI) and direct injection (DI) are modeled and compared to characterize ethanol's low autoignition reactivity and high charge cooling effects. Three ethanol/gasoline blends are studied: E0, E20, and E50. The modeled and experimental results demonstrate some systematic differences in the spark timing for trace knock across all three fuels, but the relative trends with engine load and ethanol content are consistent. Possible reasons causing the differences are discussed.