Search Results

Anti-knock index (AKI) is a metric that can be used to quantify the anti-knock performance of a fuel and is the metric used in the United States. AKI is the average of Research Octane Number (RON) and Motor Octane Number (MON), which are calculated for every fuel on a Cooperative Fuel Research (CFR) engine under controlled conditions according to ASTM test procedures. Fuels with higher AKI have better knock mitigating properties and can be run with a combustion phasing closer to MBT in the knock limited operating region of a gasoline engine. However, fuels with higher AKI tend to be costlier and less environmentally friendly to produce. As an alternative, the anti-knock characteristics of lower AKI fuels can be improved with water injection. In this sense, the water injection increases the ‘effective AKI’ of the fuel.

This is the second part of a study on using port water injection to quantifiably enhance the knock performance of fuels. In the United States, the metric used to quantify the anti-knock performance of fuels is Anti Knock Index (AKI), which is the average of Research Octane Number (RON) and Motor Octane Number (MON). Fuels with higher AKI are expected to have better knock mitigating properties, enabling the engine to run closer to Maximum Brake Torque (MBT) spark timing in the knock limited region. The work done in part I of the study related increased knock tolerance due to water injection to increased fuel AKI, thus establishing an ‘effective AKI’ due to water injection. This paper builds upon the work done in part I of the study by repeating a part of the test matrix with Primary Reference Fuels (PRFs), with iso-octane (PRF100) as the reference fuel and lower PRFs used to match its performance with the help of port water injection.

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.