Search Results

This work represents an advanced engineering research project partially funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Ford Motor Company, FEV North America, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory collaborated to develop a next generation boosted spark ignited engine concept. The project goals, specified by the DOE, were 23% improved fuel economy and 15% reduced weight relative to a 2015 or newer light-duty vehicle. The fuel economy goal was achieved by designing an engine incorporating high geometric compression ratio, high dilution tolerance, low pumping work, and low friction. The increased tendency for knock with high compression ratio was addressed using early intake valve closing (EIVC), cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), an active pre-chamber ignition system, and careful management of the fresh charge temperature.

Modern gasoline engines have increased part-load fuel economy and specific power output through technologies such as downsizing, turbocharging, direct injection, and exhaust gas recirculation. These engines tend to have higher sensitivity to driving behavior because of the steady-state efficiency versus output characteristics (e.g., sweet spot at lower output) and the dynamic response characteristics (e.g., turbo lag). It has been observed that the technologies aimed at increased engine efficiency may improve fuel economy for less aggressive cycles and drivers while hurting fuel economy for more aggressive cycles and drivers. The higher degrees of freedom in these engines and the increased sensitivity make controls and calibration more complex and more important at the same time.

Increasing compression ratio (CR) is one of the most fundamental ways to improve engine efficiency, but the CR of practical spark ignition engines is limited by knock and spark retard at high loads. A variable CR mechanism could improve efficiency by using higher CR at low loads, and lower CR (with less spark retard) at high loads. This paper quantifies the potential efficiency benefits of applying variable CR to a modern downsized, boosted gasoline engine. Load sweeps were conducted experimentally on a multi-cylinder gasoline turbocharged direct injection (GTDI) engine at several CRs. Experimental results were compared to efficiency versus CR correlations from the literature and were used to estimate the fuel economy benefits of 2-step and continuously variable CR concepts on several engine/vehicle combinations, for various drive cycles.

Combustion in modern spark-ignition (SI) engines is increasingly knock-limited with the wide adoption of downsizing and turbocharging technologies. Fuel autoignition conditions are different in these engines compared to the standard Research Octane Number (RON) and Motor Octane Numbers (MON) tests. The Octane Index, OI = RON - K(RON-MON), has been proposed as a means to characterize the actual fuel anti-knock performance in modern engines. The K-factor, by definition equal to 0 and 1 for the RON and MON tests respectively, is intended to characterize the deviation of modern engine operation from these standard octane tests. Accurate knowledge of K is of central importance to the OI model; however, a single method for determining K has not been well accepted in the literature.

Time to torque (TTT) is a quantity used to measure the transient torque response of turbocharged engines. It is referred as the time duration from an idle-to-full step torque command to the time when 95% of maximum torque is achieved. In this work, we seek to control multiple engine actuators in a collaborative way such that the TTT is minimized. We pose the TTT minimization problem as an optimization problem by parameterizing each engine actuator’s transient trajectory as Fourier series, followed by minimizing proper cost function with the optimization of those Fourier coefficients. We first investigate the problem in CAE environment by constructing an optimization framework that integrates high-fidelity GT (Gamma Technology) POWER engine model and engine actuators’ Simulink model into ModeFrontier computation platform. We conduct simulation optimization study on two different turbocharged engines under this framework with evolutionary computation algorithms.

Engine Mapping is usually performed under nominal conditions which include a humidity level of 8 g/Kg. Customers driving at different humidity conditions (which may range from 1 g/Kg in dry and colder climates and up to 35 g/Kg as in tropical climates) may experience a degraded performance due to the errors in engine torque estimation provided by the ECU. The torque estimation error interacts with many other features that affect drivability, such as the peak performance of the engine, transmission shift quality, etc. This paper extends the investigation in Part-1 by analyzing and quantifying the torque estimation error that may result in certain customer use cases at high humidity conditions, due to the mismatch between calibrated and actual conditions. The analysis is mainly performed for Speed-Density systems (MAP sensor based) but the effect of mass air flow sensor (MAF sensor) based systems is also briefly considered.

Engine Mapping is usually performed under nominal conditions which include a humidity level of 8 g/Kg. Customers driving at different conditions (which may range from 1 g/Kg in colder and dry climates and up to 35 g/Kg as in tropical climates) may experience less-than-optimal engine combustion which results in reduced onroad fuel economy. Humidity has an EGR-equivalent effect, and measuring it will correct the spark timing, mainly at Maximum Brake Torque (MBT) and borderline conditions, and claim back some of those losses. This paper aims at quantifying the small fuel economy benefits associated with on-board humidity measurement for certain customer use cases at high humidity conditions. Dyno data was collected for a Ford 2.3L GTDI engine at three speed load points, and intake air humidity was varied between 20% and 80% relative humidity. The effect of humidity compensation on spark timing, combustion phasing, knock, and consequently on overall engine efficiency was analyzed.

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.

Engine dynamometer testing was performed comparing E10, E20, and E30 splash-blended fuels in a Ford 3.5L EcoBoost direct injection (DI) turbocharged engine. The engine was tested with compression ratios (CRs) of 10.0:1 (current production) and 11.9:1. In this engine, E20 (96 RON) fuel at 11.9:1 CR gave very similar knock performance to E10 (91 RON) fuel at 10:1 CR. Similarly, E30 (101 RON) fuel at 11.9:1 CR resulted in knock-limited performance equivalent to E20 at 10:1 CR, indicating that E30 could have been run at even higher CR with acceptable knock behavior. The data was used in a vehicle simulation of a 3.5L EcoBoost pickup truck, which showed that the E20 (96 RON) fuel at 11.9:1 CR offers 5% improvement in U.S. EPA Metro-Highway (M/H) and US06 Highway cycle tank-to-wheels CO₂ emissions over the E10 fuel, with comparable volumetric fuel economy (miles per gallon) and range before refueling.

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.

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.

Ethanol has a high octane rating and can be added to gasoline to produce high octane fuel blends. Understanding the octane increase with ethanol blending is of great fundamental and practical importance. Potential issues with fuel flow rate and fuel vaporization have led to questions of the accuracy of octane measurements for ethanol-gasoline blends with moderate to high ethanol content (e.g., E20-E85) using the Cooperative Fuel Research (CFR™) engine. The nonlinearity of octane ratings with volumetric ethanol content makes it difficult to assess the accuracy of such measurements. In the present study, Research Octane Number (RON) and Motor Octane Number (MON) were measured for a matrix of ethanol-gasoline blends spanning a wide range of ethanol content (E0, E10, E20, E30, E50, E75) in a set of gasoline blendstocks spanning a range of RON values (82, 88, 92, and 95). Octane ratings for neat ethanol, denatured ethanol, and hydrous ethanol were also measured.

Recently, Ford Motor Company announced the introduction of EcoBoost engines in its Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles as an affordable fuel-saving option to millions of its customers. The EcoBoost engine is planned to start production in June of 2009 in the Lincoln MKS. The EcoBoost engine integrates direct fuel injection with turbocharging to significantly improve fuel economy via engine downsizing. An application of this technology bundle into a 3.5L V6 engine delivers up to 12% better drive cycle fuel economy and 15% lower emissions with comparable torque and power as a 5.4L V8 PFI engine. Combustion system performance is key to the success of the EcoBoost engine. A systematic methodology has been employed to develop the EcoBoost engine combustion system.

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.