Search Results

Their easy availability, lower well-to-wheel emissions, and relative ease of use with existing engine technologies have made ethanol and ethanol-gasoline blends a viable alternative to gasoline for use in spark-ignition (SI) engines. The lower energy density of ethanol and ethanol-gasoline blends, however, results in higher volumetric fuel consumption compared with gasoline. Also, the higher latent heat of vaporization can result in cold-start issues with higher-level ethanol blends. On the other hand, a higher octane number, which indicates resistance to knock and potentially enables more optimal combustion phasing, results in better engine efficiency, especially at higher loads. This paper compares the fuel consumption and emissions of two ethanol blends (E50 and E85) with those for gasoline when used in conventional (non-hybrid) and power-split-type plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).

The compression ratio is a strong lever to increase the efficiency of an internal combustion engine. However, among others, it is limited by the knock resistance of the fuel used. Natural gas shows a higher knock resistance compared to gasoline, which makes it very attractive for use in internal combustion engines. The current paper describes the knock behavior of two gasoline fuels, and specific incylinder blend ratios with one of the gasoline fuels and natural gas. The engine used for these investigations is a single cylinder research engine for light duty application which is equipped with two separate fuel systems. Both fuels can be used simultaneously which allows for gasoline to be injected into the intake port and natural gas to be injected directly into the cylinder to overcome the power density loss usually connected with port fuel injection of natural gas.

The high octane rating and more plentiful domestic supply of natural gas make it an excellent alternative to gasoline. Recent studies have shown that using natural gas in dual fuel engines provides one possible strategy for leveraging the advantages of both natural gas and gasoline. In particular, such engines been able to improve overall engine efficiencies and load capacity when they leverage direct injection of the natural gas fuel. While the benefits of these engine concepts are still being explored, differences in fuel composition, combustion process and in-cylinder mixing could lead to dramatically different emissions which can substantially impact the effectiveness of the engine’s exhaust aftertreatment system. In order to explore this topic, this study examined the variations in speciated hydrocarbon emissions which occur for different fuel blends of E10 and compressed natural gas and for different fuel injection strategies on a spark-ignition engine.

Natural Gas (NG) is an alternative fuel which has attracted a lot of attention recently, in particular in the US due to shale gas availability. The higher hydrogen-to-carbon (H/C) ratio, compared to gasoline, allows for decreasing carbon dioxide emissions throughout the entire engine map. Furthermore, the high knock resistance of NG allows increasing the efficiency at high engine loads compared to fuels with lower knock resistance. NG direct injection (DI) allows for fuel to be added after intake valve closing (IVC) resulting in an increase in power density compared to an injection before IVC. Steady-state engine tests were performed on a single-cylinder research engine equipped with gasoline (E10) port-fuel injection (PFI) and NG DI to allow for in-cylinder blending of both fuels. Knock investigations were performed at two discrete compression ratios (CR), 10.5 and 12.5.