Search Results

Gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines can offer improved fuel economy and higher performance over their port fuel-injected (PFI) counterparts, and are now appearing in increasingly more U.S. and European vehicles. Small displacement, turbocharged GDI engines are replacing large displacement engines, particularly in light-duty trucks and sport utility vehicles, in order for manufacturers to meet more stringent fuel economy standards. GDI engines typically emit the most particulate matter (PM) during periods of rich operation such as start-up and acceleration, and emissions of air toxics are also more likely during this condition. A 2.0 L GDI engine was operated at lambda of 0.91 at typical loads for acceleration (2600 rpm, 8 bar BMEP) on three different fuels; an 87 anti-knock index (AKI) gasoline (E0), 30% ethanol blended with the 87 AKI fuel (E30), and 48% isobutanol blended with the 87 AKI fuel.

A spark-assist homogeneous charge compression ignition (SA-HCCI) operating strategy is presented here that allows for stoichiometric combustion from 1000-3000 rpm, and at loads as high as 750 kPa net IMEP. A single cylinder gasoline engine equipped with direct fuel injection and fully variable hydraulic valve actuation (HVA) is used for this experimental study. The HVA system enables negative valve overlap (NVO) valve timing for hot internal EGR. Spark-assist stabilizes combustion over a wide range of engine speeds and loads, and allows for stoichiometric operation at all conditions. Characteristics of both spark-ignited combustion and HCCI are present during the SA-HCCI operating mode, with combustion analysis showing a distinctive spark ignited phase of combustion, followed by a much more rapid HCCI combustion phase. At high load, the maximum cylinder pressure rise rate is controlled by a combination of spark timing and retarding the intake valve closing angle.

In this study the volume and hardness were measured for thermoplastics and thermosetting resins with diesel containing up to 30% of the following blend stocks: biodiesel, renewable diesel, n-undecane, dibutoxymethane, 1-octanol, hexyl hexanoate, and 2-nonanone. Thermoplastics included polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyoxymethylene (POM), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polypropylene (PP), high density polyethylene (HDPE), nylons, acetals, polyetherimide (PEI), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), a PET co-polymer, polyphthalamides (PPAs), polyarylamide (PARA) and ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE). Three thermosetting resins were also evaluated. The material specimens were exposed to the test fuels under ambient conditions for 16 weeks.

Polyoxymethylene dimethyl ethers (PODEs) have shown promise as candidates for diesel fuel blendstocks due to their low sooting tendency, high cetane number, and diesel-comparable boiling point range. However, there is a lack of literature regarding compatibility of PODEs with common automotive elastomers, which would be a prerequisite to their adoption into the marketplace. To address this need, an exposure study and complementary solubility analysis were undertaken. A commercially available blend of PODEs with polymerization degree ranging from 3 to 6 was blended with diesel certification fuel at 0, 33, 50, 67, at 100% by mass. Elastomer coupons were exposed to the various blends for a period of 4 weeks and evaluated for volume swell.

The compatibility of plastic materials used in fuel storage and dispensing applications was determined for a test fuel representing gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. Prior investigations were performed on gasoline fuels containing 25, 50 and 85% ethanol, but the knowledge gap existing from 0 to 25% ethanol precluded accurate compatibility assessment of low level blends, especially for the current E10 fuel (gasoline containing 10% ethanol) used in most filling stations, and the recently accepted E15 fuel blend (gasoline blended with up to15% ethanol). For the majority of the plastic materials evaluated in this study, the wet volume swell (which is the parameter most commonly used to assess compatibility) was higher for fuels containing 25% ethanol, while the volume swell accompanying E10 was much lower.

The compatibility of plastic materials used in fuel storage and dispensing applications was determined for an off-highway diesel fuel and a blend containing 20% bio-oil (Bio20) derived from a fast pyrolysis process. Bio20 is not to be confused with B20, which is a diesel blend containing 20% biodiesel. The feedstock, processing, and chemistry of biodiesel are markedly different from bio-oil. Plastic materials included those identified for use as seals, coatings, piping and fiberglass resins, but many are also used in vehicle fueling systems. The plastic specimens were exposed to the two fuel types for 16 weeks at 60°C. After measuring the wetted volume and hardness, the specimens were dried for 65 hours at 60°C and then remeasured to determine extent of property change. A solubility analysis was performed to better understand the performance of plastic materials in fuel blends composed of bio-oil and diesel.

The compatibility of plastic materials used in gasoline storage and dispensing applications was determined for test fuels representing neat gasoline (Fuel C), and blends containing 25% ethanol (CE25a), 16% isobutanol (CiBu16a), and 24% isobutanol (CiBu24a). A solubility analysis was also performed and compared to the volume swell results obtained from the test fuel exposures. The plastic specimens were exposed to each test fuel for16 weeks at 60°C. After measuring the wetted volume and hardness, the specimens were dried for 65 hours at 60°C and then remeasured for volume and hardness. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), which measures the storage modulus as a function of temperature, was also performed on the dried specimens to determine the temperature associated with the onset of the glass-to-rubber transition (Tg). For many of the plastic materials, the solubility analysis was able to predict the relative volume swell for each test fuel.

The compatibility of elastomer materials used in fuel storage and dispensing applications was determined for an off-highway diesel fuel and a blend containing 20% bio-oil (Bio20) derived from a fast pyrolysis process. (This fuel blend is not to be confused with B20, which is a blend of diesel fuel with 20% biodiesel.) The elastomer types evaluated in this study included fluorocarbon, fluorosilicone, acrylonitrile rubber (NBR), styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), polyurethane, neoprene, and silicone. All of these elastomer types are used in sealing applications, but some, like the nitrile rubbers are also common hose materials. The elastomer specimens were exposed to the two fuel types for 4 weeks at 60°C. After measuring the wetted volume and hardness, the specimens were dried for 65 hours at 60°C and then remeasured. A solubility analysis was performed to better understand the performance of plastic materials in fuel blends composed of bio-oil and diesel.

The compatibility of elastomeric materials used in fuel storage and dispensing applications was determined for test fuels representing neat gasoline and gasoline blends containing 10 and 17 vol.% ethanol, and 16 and 24 vol.% isobutanol. The actual test fuel chemistries were based on the aggressive formulations described in SAE J1681 for oxygenated gasoline. Elastomer specimens of fluorocarbon, fluorosilicone, acrylonitrile rubber (NBR), polyurethane, neoprene, styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) and silicone were exposed to the test fuels for 4 weeks at 60°C. After measuring the wetted volume and hardness, the specimens were dried for 20 hours at 60°C and then remeasured for volume and hardness. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) was also performed to determine the glass transition temperature (Tg). Comparison to the original values showed that all elastomer materials experienced volume expansion and softening when wetted by the test fuels.

In order to achieve proposed fuel economy requirements, engines must make better use of the available fuel energy. Regardless of how efficient the engine is, there will still be a significant fraction of the fuel energy that is rejected in the exhaust and coolant streams. One viable technology for recovering this waste heat is an Organic Rankine Cycle. This cycle heats a working fluid using these heat streams and expands the fluid through a turbine to produce shaft power. The present work was the development of such a system applied to a light duty diesel engine. This lab demonstration was designed to maximize the peak brake thermal efficiency of the engine, and the combined system achieved an efficiency of 45%. The design of the system is discussed, as are the experimental performance results. The system potential at typical operating conditions was evaluated to determine the practicality of installing such a system in a vehicle.