Search Results

The performance and efficiency of spark ignited gasoline engines is often limited by end-gas knock. In particular, when operating the engine at high loads, combustion phasing is retarded to prevent knock, resulting in a significant reduction of engine efficiency. Since the invention of the spark ignition (SI) engine, much work has been devoted to improve and regulate fuel characteristics, such as octane number, to suppress engine knock. The auto-ignition tendency of the engine lubricant however, as described by cetane number (CN), has received little attention, as it has been assumed that engine lubricant effects on knock are insignificant, primarily due to low levels of average oil consumption. However, with modern SI engines being developed to operate at higher loads and closer to knock limits, the reactivity of engine lubricants can impact the knock behavior.

Dual fuel engines have shown significant potential as high efficiency powerplants. In one example, SwRI® has run a high EGR, dual-fuel engine using gasoline as the main fuel and diesel as the ignition source, achieving high thermal efficiencies with near zero NOx and smoke emissions. However, assuming a tank size that could be reasonably packaged, the diesel fuel tank would need to be refilled often due to the relatively high fraction of diesel required. To reduce the refill interval, SwRI investigated various alternative fluids as potential ignition sources. The fluids included: Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), Biodiesel, NORPAR (a commercially available mixture of normal paraffins: n-pentadecane (normal C15H32), and n-hexadecane (normal C16H34)) and ashless lubrication oil. Lubrication oil was considered due to its high cetane number (CN) and high viscosity, hence high ignitability.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) began using an ultra-low-sulfur, low aromatic, high cetane number diesel fuel (TxLED, Texas Low Emission Diesel) in June 2003. They initiated a simultaneous study of the effectiveness to reduce emissions and influence fuel economy of this fuel in comparison to 2D on-road diesel fuel used in both their on-road and off-road equipment. The study incorporated analyses for the fleet operated by the Association of General Contractors (AGC) in the Houston area. Some members of AGC use 2D off-road diesel in their equipment. One off-road engine, two single-axle dump trucks, and two tandem-axle dump trucks were tested. The equipment tested included newer electronically-controlled diesels. The off-road engine was tested over the TxDOT Telescoping Boom Excavator Cycle. The dump trucks were tested using the “route” technique over the TxDOT Single-Axle Dump Truck Cycle or the TxDOT Tandem-Axle Dump Truck Cycle.