Search Results

Modification of gasoline blendstock composition in preparing ethanol-gasoline blends has a significant impact on vehicle exhaust emissions. In “splash” blending the blendstock is fixed, ethanol-gasoline blend compositions are clearly defined, and effects on emissions are relatively straightforward to interpret. In “match” blending the blendstock composition is modified for each ethanol-gasoline blend to match one or more fuel properties. The effects on emissions depend on which fuel properties are matched and what modifications are made, making trends difficult to interpret. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that exclusive use of a match blending approach has fundamental flaws. For typical gasolines without ethanol, the distillation profile is a smooth, roughly linear relationship of temperature vs. percent fuel distilled.

Engine dynamometer testing was performed comparing fuels having different octane ratings and ethanol content in a Ford 3.5L direct injection turbocharged (EcoBoost) engine at three compression ratios (CRs). The fuels included midlevel ethanol “splash blend” and “octane-matched blend” fuels, E10-98RON (U.S. premium), and E85-108RON. For the splash blends, denatured ethanol was added to E10-91RON, which resulted in E20-96RON and E30-101 RON. For the octane-matched blends, gasoline blendstocks were formulated to maintain constant RON and MON for E10, E20, and E30. The match blend E20-91RON and E30-91RON showed no knock benefit compared to the baseline E10-91RON fuel. However, the splash blend E20-96RON and E10-98RON enabled 11.9:1 CR with similar knock performance to E10-91RON at 10:1 CR. The splash blend E30-101RON enabled 13:1 CR with better knock performance than E10-91RON at 10:1 CR. As expected, E85-108RON exhibited dramatically better knock performance than E30-101RON.

This paper presents engine dynamometer testing and modeling analysis of ethanol compared to gasoline at part load conditions where the engine was not knock-limited with either fuel. The purpose of this work was to confirm the efficiency improvement for ethanol reported in published papers, and to quantify the components of the improvement. Testing comparing E85 to E0 gasoline was conducted in an alternating back-to-back manner with multiple data points for each fuel to establish high confidence in the measured results. Approximately 4% relative improvement in brake thermal efficiency (BTE) was measured at three speed-load points. Effects on BTE due to pumping work and emissions were quantified based on the measured engine data, and accounted for only a small portion of the difference.

This paper provides an overview of the effects of blending ethanol with gasoline for use in spark ignition engines. The overview is written from the perspective of considering a future ethanol-gasoline blend for use in vehicles that have been designed to accommodate such a fuel. Therefore discussion of the effects of ethanol-gasoline blends on older legacy vehicles is not included. As background, highlights of future emissions regulations are discussed. The effects on fuel properties of blending ethanol and gasoline are described. The substantial increase in knock resistance and full load performance associated with the addition of ethanol to gasoline is illustrated with example data. Aspects of fuel efficiency enabled by increased ethanol content are reviewed, including downsizing and downspeeding opportunities, increased compression ratio, fundamental effects associated with ethanol combustion, and reduced enrichment requirement at high speed/high load conditions.

Ethanol and other high heat of vaporization (HoV) fuels result in substantial cooling of the fresh charge, especially in direct injection (DI) engines. The effect of charge cooling combined with the inherent high chemical octane of ethanol make it a very knock resistant fuel. Currently, the knock resistance of a fuel is characterized by the Research Octane Number (RON) and the Motor Octane Number (MON). However, the RON and MON tests use carburetion for fuel metering and thus likely do not replicate the effect of charge cooling for DI engines. The operating conditions of the RON and MON tests also do not replicate the very retarded combustion phasing encountered with modern boosted DI engines operating at low-speed high-load. In this study, the knock resistance of a matrix of ethanol-gasoline blends was determined in a state-of-the-art single cylinder engine equipped with three separate fuel systems: upstream, pre-vaporized fuel injection (UFI); port fuel injection (PFI); and DI.

It has been previously reported that ethanol can be reformed at around 300°C to a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane using copper-plated nickel catalyst. This low reforming temperature enables heat to be supplied from the engine exhaust. Single-cylinder engine testing demonstrated that this gaseous mixture of "ethanol reformate" enhances engine combustion and part load dilution capability, which decreases fuel consumption while also reducing feedgas NOx emissions. In addition, excellent cold start capability with significantly reduced hydrocarbon emissions was observed. Thus, ethanol reformate has the potential to address two major barriers to wider use of ethanol as an engine fuel: ethanol's low heating value per volume and higher hydrocarbon emissions at startup relative to gasoline. In this study, the dilute capability of a multi-cylinder engine was assessed using a mixture of 50% reformate and 50% E85 on a mass basis at several key part load operating points.

The exhaust blowdown pulse from each cylinder of a multi-cylinder engine propagates through the exhaust manifold and can affect the in-cylinder pressure of other cylinders which have open exhaust valves. Depending on the firing interval between cylinders connected to the same exhaust manifold, this blowdown interference can affect the exhaust stroke pumping work and the exhaust pressure during overlap, which in turn affects the residual fraction in those cylinders. These blowdown interference effects are much greater for a turbocharged engine than for one which is naturally aspirated because the volume of the exhaust manifolds is minimized to improve turbocharger transient response and because the turbines restrict the flow out of the manifolds. The uneven firing order (intervals of 90°-180°-270°-180°) on each bank of a 90° V8 engine causes the blowdown interference effects to vary dramatically between cylinders.

Two major barriers to wider use of ethanol as an engine fuel are ethanol's low heating value per volume relative to gasoline and higher hydrocarbon emissions at startup. Ethanol provides about one-third lower fuel economy than gasoline on a volumetric basis if the two fuels are utilized with equal efficiency, making ethanol less attractive to consumers. In addition, it is difficult to meet emissions standards such as SULEV when using E85 or hydrous ethanol, because ethanol's low volatility and high heat of vaporization compared to gasoline result in incomplete combustion when the engine is cold. A catalyst consisting of a copper-plated nickel sponge has recently been developed that enables ethanol to be reformed at around 300°C to a mixture of hydrogen (H₂), carbon monoxide (CO), and methane (CH₄). This low reforming temperature enables heat to be supplied from the engine exhaust.

Ford Motor Company is introducing “EcoBoost” gasoline turbocharged direct injection (GTDI) engine technology in the 2010 Lincoln MKS. A logical enhancement of EcoBoost technology is the use of E85 for knock mitigation. The subject of this paper is the optimal use of E85 by using two fuel systems in the same EcoBoost engine: port fuel injection (PFI) of gasoline and direct injection (DI) of E85. Gasoline PFI is used for starting and light-medium load operation, while E85 DI is used only as required during high load operation to avoid knock. Direct injection of E85 (a commercially available blend of ∼85% ethanol and ∼15% gasoline) is extremely effective in suppressing knock, due to ethanol's high inherent octane and its high heat of vaporization, which results in substantial cooling of the charge. As a result, the compression ratio (CR) can be increased and higher boost levels can be used.

In order to improve fuel economy, engine manufacturers are investigating various technologies that reduce pumping work in spark ignition engines. Current cylinder pressure analysis methods do not allow valid comparison of pumping work reduction strategies. Existing methods neglect valve timing effects which occur during the expansion and compression strokes, but are actually part of the gas exchange process. These additional pumping work contributions become more significant when evaluating non-standard valve timing concepts. This paper outlines a new analysis method for calculating the pumping work and indicated work of a 4-stroke internal combustion engine. Corrections to PMEP and IMEP are introduced which allow the valid comparison of pumping work and indicated efficiency between engines with different pumping work reduction strategies.

Variable cam timing strategies which utilize retard of the intake and exhaust valve events at part load have been previously shown to provide improved fuel consumption and feedgas NOx. These benefits can be increased by enhancing the combustion system with variable charge motion. A variable event duration valvetrain was simulated on engine dynamometer by running a series of short duration/low lift intake valve events. The fuel consumption benefit for this simulated variable event valvetrain is compared to that of dual retard VCT with variable charge motion. An estimated upper limit for the fuel consumption improvement potential of variable valve timing is presented. This upper limit includes both pumping work reduction and indicated efficiency improvement with high levels of exhaust residual dilution. The measured benefits of dual retard VCT and of the variable event valvetrain are compared to the estimated upper limit.