Search Results

In this work, the influences of ethanol and iso-butanol blended with gasoline on engine-out and post three-way catalyst (TWC) particle size distribution and number concentration were studied using a General Motors (GM) 2.0L turbocharged spark ignition direct injection (SIDI) engine. The engine was operated using the production engine control unit (ECU) with a dynamometer controlling the engine speed and the accelerator pedal position controlling the engine load. A TSI Fast Mobility Particle Sizer (FMPS) spectrometer was used to measure the particle size distribution in the range from 5.6 to 560 nm with a sampling rate of 1 Hz. U.S. federal certification gasoline (E0), two ethanol-blended fuels (E10 and E20), and 11.7% iso-butanol blended fuel (BU12) were tested. Measurements were conducted at 10 selected steady-state engine operation conditions. Bi-modal particle size distributions were observed for all operating conditions with peak values at particle sizes of 10 nm and 70 nm.

The objective of this work was to measure knock resistance metrics for ethanol-hydrocarbon blends with a primary focus on development of methods to measure the heat of vaporization (HOV). Blends of ethanol at 10 to 50 volume percent were prepared with three gasoline blendstocks and a natural gasoline. Performance properties and composition of the blendstocks and blends were measured, including research octane number (RON), motor octane number (MON), net heating value, density, distillation curve, and vapor pressure. RON increases upon blending ethanol but with diminishing returns above about 30 vol%. Above 30% to 40% ethanol the curves flatten and converge at a RON of about 103 to 105, even for the much lower RON NG blendstock. Octane sensitivity (S = RON - MON) also increases upon ethanol blending. Gasoline blendstocks with nearly identical S can show significantly different sensitivities when blended with ethanol.

In the last three years, three quality surveys on ethanol-blended fuels intended for use in flex-fuel vehicles have been published. Two of these surveys cover Flex-Fuel quality, and the third encompasses the quality of mid-level ethanol blends (MLEBs) from blender pumps. The purpose of these surveys was to report on the quality of the fuels and provide a snapshot in time of fuel quality. This study examines the larger picture portrayed by these surveys and looks for broader trends in fuel quality. The analysis found that compliance with vapor pressure specification limits for Flex Fuel improved from 40% to 66% in Class 1, from 31% to 43% in Class 2, and from 12% to 30% in Class 3 between 2008 and 2010. Failures on other critical properties, such as acidity, pHe, water, and inorganic chloride were less than 6% in these studies. The 2010 Flex Fuel samples readily met the ethanol content specification, with 88%, 92%, and 95% compliance for Classes 1, 2, and 3, respectively.