Search Results

Over the past few years, both global warming and rising oil prices led to a significantly increased demand for low fuel consumption in passenger cars. However, the necessity to also meet the limits of today's and future emission regulations makes it more and more difficult to maintain a high engine efficiency without the use of an expensive external exhaust gas after-treatment system. Therefore, new technologies that simultaneously prevent emission formation and reduce fuel consumption inside the internal combustion engine during the combustion process itself are of highest interest. This paper analyzes the influence of a catalytic coating of the combustion chamber on combustion, emission formation and fuel consumption. For this purpose, test runs with a production 2.0-liter, 4-cylinder, 4-valve, double overhead camshaft (DOHC), port fuel injection (PFI) gasoline engine were performed.

In order to reduce engine out CO2 emissions it is a main subject to find new alternative fuels out of renewable sources. For this reason in this paper a blend out of 1-octanol and di-n-butylether and pure di-n-butylether are investigated in comparison to n-heptane as diesel-like fuel. The alternative fuels have a different combustion behavior particularly concerning important combustion parameters like ignition delay and mixture formation. Especially the formation of pollutants like nitrogen oxides in the combustion of alternative fuels is of global interest. The knowledge of the combustion behavior is important to design new engine geometries or implement a new calibration of the engine. In previous measurements in a single cylinder engine it was found out that both alternative fuels form nearly no soot emissions. For this reason now NOx is investigated optically to avoid the traditional soot NOx trade-off in diesel combustion.

Stringent global emissions legislation demands effective NOx reduction strategies, particularly for the aftertreatment, and current typical liquid urea SCR systems achieve efficiencies greater than 90% [1]. However, with such high-performing systems comes the trade-off of requiring a tank of reductant (urea water solution) to be filled regularly, usually as soon as the fuel fillings or as far as oil changes. Advantages of solid reductants, particularly ammonium carbamate, include greater ammonia densities, enabling the reductant refill interval to be extended several multiples versus a given reductant volume of urea, or diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) [2]. An additional advantage is direct gaseous ammonia dosing, enabling reductant injection at lower exhaust temperatures to widen its operational coverage achieving greater emissions reduction potential [3], as well as eliminating deposits, reducing mixing lengths, and avoiding freeze/thaw risks and investments.