0
Research Papers: Internal Combustion Engines

Supercharging the Double-Fueled Spark Ignition Engine: Performance and Efficiency

[+] Author and Article Information
Emiliano Pipitone

Department of Industrial and Digital Innovation,
University of Palermo,
Viale delle Scienze,
Palermo 90128, Italy
e-mail: emiliano.pipitone@unipa.it

Stefano Beccari

Department of Industrial and Digital Innovation,
University of Palermo,
Viale delle Scienze,
Palermo 90128, Italy
e-mail: stefano.beccari@unipa.it

Giuseppe Genchi

Department of Industrial and Digital Innovation,
University of Palermo,
Viale delle Scienze,
Palermo 90128, Italy
e-mail: giuseppe.genchi@unipa.it

Contributed by the IC Engine Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 28, 2016; final manuscript received March 15, 2017; published online May 16, 2017. Assoc. Editor: David L. S. Hung.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 139(10), 102809 (May 16, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-16-1371; doi: 10.1115/1.4036514 History: Received July 28, 2016; Revised March 15, 2017

Internal combustion engine development focuses mainly on two aspects: fuel economy improvement and pollutant emissions reduction. As a consequence, light duty spark ignition (SI) engines have become smaller, supercharged, and equipped with direct injection and advanced valve train control systems. The use of alternative fuels, such as natural gas (NG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), thanks to their lower cost and environmental impact, widely spread in the automotive market, above all in bifuel vehicles, whose spark ignited engines may run either with gasoline or with gaseous fuel. The authors in previous works experimentally tested the strong engine efficiency increment and pollutant emissions reduction attainable by the simultaneous combustion of gasoline and gaseous fuel (NG or LPG). The increased knock resistance, obtained by the addition of gaseous fuel to gasoline, allowed the engine to run with stoichiometric mixture and best spark timing even at full load. In the present work, the authors extended the research by testing the combustion of gasoline–NG mixtures, in different proportions, in supercharged conditions, with several boost pressure levels, in order to evaluate the benefits in terms of engine performance, efficiency, and pollutant emissions with respect to pure gasoline and pure NG operation. The results indicate that a fuel mixture with a NG mass percentage of 40% allows to maximize engine performance by adopting the highest boost pressure (1.6 bar), while the best efficiency would be obtained with moderate boosting (1.2 bar) and NG content between 40% and 60% in mass.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Test bench layout: (1) Roots supercharger, (2) intercooler, (3) SI engine, (4) eddy current dynamometer, (5) data acquisition and engine control system, (6) feedback PID controller for brushless actuation, (7) brushless AC motor, (8) brushless speed control signal, (9) boost pressure sensor signal, and (10) engine control inputs and sensors output signals

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Relative air/fuel ratio λ adopted for pure gasoline operation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

IMEP results for both pure NG and pure gasoline (st. dev. bars are also reported)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

IMEP, and its increment with respect to pure NG mode, for the 40% NG fuel mixture (st. dev. bars are also reported)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

IMEP, and its increment with respect to pure NG mode, for the 60% NG fuel mixture (st. dev. bars are also reported)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

IMEP, and its increment with respect to pure NG mode, for the 80% NG fuel mixture (st. dev. bars are also reported)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Indicated thermal efficiency measured with both pure fuels, and its increment with respect to gasoline (st. dev. bars are also reported)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Indicated thermal efficiency, and its increment compared to gasoline, measured with the 40% NG fuel mixture (st. dev. bars are also reported)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Indicated thermal efficiency, and its variations with respect to pure gasoline, measured for 60% NG (st. dev. bars are also reported)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Indicated thermal efficiency, and its variations with respect to pure gasoline, measured for 80% NG (st. dev. bars are also reported)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison between LPP measured with 40% NG mixture and with pure gasoline

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Indicated thermal efficiency measured for the two pure fuels with 1 bar MAP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

CO raw emissions measured with both 60% NG mixture and pure gasoline

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

CO raw emissions measured with both pure fuels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

THC raw emissions measured with both 80% NG mixture and pure gasoline

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

THC raw emissions measured with both pure fuels

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In