2010-01-1453

ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OF PURE ETHANOL ENGINES

Alberto Boretti
University of Ballarat, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
Copyright © 2010 SAE International

ABSTRACT
Ethanol, unlike petroleum, is a renewable resource that can be produced from agricultural feed stocks. Ethanol
fuel is widely used by flex-fuel light vehicles in Brazil and as oxygenate to gasoline in the United States.
Ethanol can be blended with gasoline in varying quantities up to pure ethanol (E100), and most modern gasoline
engines well operate with mixtures of 10% ethanol (E10). E100 consumption in an engine is higher than for
gasoline since the energy per unit volume of ethanol is lower than for gasoline. The higher octane number of
ethanol may possibly allow increased power output and better fuel economy of pure ethanol engines vs. flexi-
fuel engines. High compression ratio ethanol only vehicles possibly will have fuel efficiency equal to or greater
than current gasoline engines. The paper explores the impact some advanced technologies, namely downsizing,
turbo charging, liquid charge cooling, high pressure direct injection, variable valve actuation may have on
performance and emission of a pure ethanol engine. Results of simulations are described in details providing
guidelines for development of new dedicated engines.

INTRODUCTION
Ethanol is an alternative fuel resulting in less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than gasoline [1]. The key
environmental benefit of ethanol is that, unlike gasoline and diesel, its consumption does not significantly raise
atmospheric levels of CO2. This is because the CO2 which is released during the burning of the fuel is counter-
balanced by that which is removed from the environment by photosynthesis when growing crops and trees for
ethanol production. There is considerable controversy as to whether corn-based ethanol is a net positive with
respect to GHG emission. Production of ethanol fuel from sugar cane is however generally accepted to produce
a reduction in GHG emission. On a life cycle basis, ethanol produced today roughly reduces 20% GHG
emissions [1], and in terms of fossil energy, it delivers one third or more energy than is used to produce it
accounting for the energy contained in the co-products [1]. This GHG emission reduction could increase with
improved efficiency and use of renewable energy, and producing ethanol from more abundant cellulosic
biomass sources rather than corn or sugar cane. If ethanol has the potential to significantly reduce global GHG
emissions associated with transportation, controls are definitely needed to protect ecologically important lands,
and the production efficiency and environmentally friendliness has to be incontestably improved.

Ethanol blends in use today have little impact on fuel economy or vehicle performance. Ethanol is available in
various blends, most commonly E5, E10, E85, E100, where the E stands for ethanol and the number denotes the
% of ethanol in the blend. Ethanol delivers less energy per liter than gasoline, but has an increased resistance to
knock. Most modern gasoline vehicles may be fuelled with gasoline blended with small amounts of ethanol,

Page 1 of 13
gasoline, E10 or any mixture of the two, with no perceptible effect on fuel economy. Flex-fuel vehicles may be
fuelled with both gasoline and ethanol in any proportions. Hardware modifications are needed, including more
durable valves and valve seats, and the use of ethanol-compatible materials in the fuel system. Today’s flex-fuel
vehicles can run on E85, gasoline or any mixture of the two, with automatic fuel adjustments of engine
operation [2]. E85 has a much higher octane rating than gasoline, and turbocharged flexi-fuel engines [2] may
use higher boost pressure and more advanced ignition timing than on gasoline without risk of knocking or pre-
detonation. The compression ratio of the engine is however fixed to the minim value needed when running
gasoline, and further benefits in terms of reduction of CO2 production and use of fossil fuels may therefore be
obtained running the higher compression ratio pure ethanol engines that are the subject of the paper, where
direct injection is added to turbo charging to fully exploit the advantages of ethanol’s higher research octane
number and higher heat of vaporization.

Pure ethanol engines are not a new idea. They have been very popular in Brazil in the 80s. Brazil has been the
pioneering country in the use of ethanol as a road transport fuel, starting its experience in between the two
world wars. Sugar cane has been one of the main resources of Brazil since the 1500s, and sugar cane crops are
the basis for ethanol production in Brazil. In the 70s, increased oil prices convinced the Brazilian government to
launch the Pro-alcohol program to help reduce the country's dependence on oil replacing gasoline with ethanol
made from sugar. In the early 80s almost all cars sold in Brazil ran on ethanol. As oil prices dropped in the
latest 80s, the Brazilian government suddenly decreased support for ethanol production, and production
volumes stagnated despite the fact that demand remained strong. A serious supply crisis occurred in 1989, when
drivers where not able to find the pure ethanol fuel required to run the not flex-fuel cars. The supply crisis and
the subsequent loss of consumer’s confidence in pure ethanol fuelled cars plus the oil prices affordable over
again plunged the popularity of ethanol-powered cars. When oil prices returned high, ethanol in Brazil
rebounded, but this time car manufacturers designed flex-fuel cars powered by any mixture of gasoline and
ethanol, allowing the driver to choose whichever fuel was cheaper or more easily available. The additional
benefits in terms of reduction of CO2 production and use of fossil fuels and a more mature, environmentally
friendly and sustainable ethanol industry may renew the scope of pure ethanol engines having efficiencies much
better than gasoline.

Turbo charging is one of the main advantages of Diesel engines, now being considered also for gasoline engine
applications to improve both the power density and the fuel conversion efficiency. Although the main
advantages of Diesel are high compression ratio and lean operation, turbo charging increases the power density
which is otherwise low due to lean operation and offers efficiency benefits partially recovering the exhaust heat
to compress the intake air.

Gasoline engine turbo charging technology was specifically developed for racing applications during the so
called Turbo Era in Formula One from 1977 to 1989, and it is now an area of major concerns for new passenger
car engines because of the benefits on vehicle economy through recovery of exhaust waste energy boosting the
fuel conversion efficiency and the opportunity cycles thanks to downsizing to run higher brake mean effective
pressures with the embedded reduced penalties in fuel conversion efficiency during emission. The turbo
charged port fuel injected Formula One engines of the 80s were able to achieve amazing specific power and
torque densities. The F1 turbo engines were 1.5 liters maximum displacement with layout V-six. These engines
where developed with the turbine waste gated to control the boost pressure, therefore leaving space for even
better results in terms of power density and specific fuel consumption more completely recovering the exhaust
energy to increase the boost pressure, and without the improvements of knock tendency due to the charge
cooling of direct injection.

Page 2 of 13
The 1987 Honda RA167E engine [12], with restrictions on maximum fuel capacity of 195 liters and maximum
boost pressure of 4 bar, was delivering a maximum power of 742 kW at 12000 rpm, and a maximum torque of
664 N·m at 9800, corresponding to a brake mean effective pressure BMEP of 55.85 bar. The fuel-to-air
equivalence ratio was 1.23, compression ratio 7.4:1, intake air temperature after intercooler 40º C, spark timing
maximum brake torque or knock limited. Fuel was a RON 102 mixture of toluene, normal heptane and iso-
octane. The 1988 Honda RA168E engine [12], with restrictions on maximum fuel capacity of 150 liters and
maximum boost pressure of 2.5 bar, was delivering 504 kW at 12500 rpm, and maximum torque of 424 N·m at
10000 rpm, corresponding to a BMEP of 35.66 bar. The fuel-to-air equivalence ratio was 1.15, compression
ratio 9.4:1, intake air temperature after intercooler 40º C, spark timing maximum brake torque or knock limited.
At maximum power, with a spark advance of 35º crank angle BTDC, maximum pressure was 167 bar at 17 º
crank angle ATDC, while IMEP was 38 bar. Operating with intake air temperature of 70º C and a fuel-to-air
equivalence ratio of 1.02, the minimum brake specific fuel consumption BSFC was 272 g/kWh, while the
maximum power was 456 kW at 12500 rpm.

The paper explores the advantages direct injection and high turbo charging may give to pure ethanol engines
fully exploiting the reduced knock tendency and the increased heat of vaporization of ethanol when compared to
gasoline. The high evaporation enthalpy of ethanol requires detailed examinations regarding the cold start
behavior [16-23]. Various injection strategies should be adopted to avoid the fuel film on the piston top and
ensure that the first injected mass of fuel could also be ignited [16]. The larger amounts of fuel to be injected
with ethanol may also increase the oil dilution. Both these aspects are not considered in the paper. Peak
cylinder pressures and turbine inlet temperatures of the following application are compatible with values used in
racing applications of the 70s. Peak cylinder pressures are higher than those of today's production gasoline
engines, but close to those of today's production Diesel engines. Cost related thermal and structural limitations
to boost are not considered in the present paper.

DIRECT INJECTION TURBO CHARGED E100 ENGINE

Ethanol has many advantages and disadvantages when compared to gasoline as a fuel [3 to 9]. Gasoline blends
differ, and properties of gasoline vary with type. Nevertheless, it is possible to define reference values for
gasoline as well as of ethanol to compare. When reference is made to gasoline, ethanol has a smaller Lower
Heating Value (LHV), about 26.8 MJ/Kg vs. 43.2 MJ/Kg. However, the stoichiometric air/fuel ratio for ethanol
is also smaller than the one for gasoline, 9.0078 vs. 14.6, or the fuel-to-air ratio is larger, 0.111 vs. 0.068, and
therefore, the amount of energy per kg of stoichiometric mixture is similar for ethanol and gasoline, respectively
2.68 MJ/Kg vs. 2.77 MJ/Kg. Ethanol has a much larger Research Octane Number (RON), roughly 129 vs. 95.
These permits higher compression ratios, higher boost in turbocharged engines, and better knock limited spark
advances. Ethanol also has a larger heat of vaporization, respectively 841 kJ/kg vs.360 kJ/kg. The amount of
energy available per kg of stoichiometric mixture to cool the charge is therefore 84.1 kJ/kg vs.23 kJ/kg. This
permits higher densities in the intake that may increase volumetric efficiency especially in naturally aspirated
engines with PFI engines, or better cooling of the in-cylinder charge in both naturally aspirated and turbo
charged DI engines. This latter feature further reduces the knock sensitivity. Densities of gasoline and ethanol
are similar, respectively 750 kg/m3 vs. 786 kg/m3. However, fuel injection systems must handle larger
quantities of fuel because of the lower energy content. Therefore, DI fuel injectors developed for gasoline
applications should probably be revised for higher flow areas or increased injection pressures to efficiently
operate with ethanol.

If direct fuel injection and turbo charging are two of the most effective directions in improving the efficiency of
gasoline engines, there is no doubt pure ethanol engines should follow these trends. The evaporative cooling
from direct ethanol injection, coupled with the high octane rating of ethanol, has been already proved to be

Page 3 of 13
highly effective in inhibiting knock [5]. Direct injection and turbo charging may therefore optimize pure
ethanol-fuelled engines to a level of performance that exceeds gasoline engine efficiency taking full advantage
of ethanol’s higher research octane number and higher heat of vaporization. Therefore, simulations have been
performed using the WAVE code [10] for an in-line four spark ignition engine. Combustion is simulated with a
predictive SI turbulent combustion model [10 and 13], while knock is simply computed with an empirical
induction-time correlation model [10 and 14].

The simple knock model is a well known induction time correlation [14]. The induction time in seconds is
calculated at every time step using the following equation:

where Ap is a pre-exponential multiplier, ON the fuel octane number, P the cylinder pressure [kg/cm2], AT
the activation temperature multiplier and T the unburned gas temperature [K]. This induction time continually
decreases as combustion progresses and the unburned zone temperature rises. The end-gas auto-ignites
(knocks) if the induction time is less than the flame arrival time. The model assumes that auto-ignition occurs
when:

where t0 is the start of end-gas compression, ti the time of auto-ignition and t is the induction time. WAVE
[10] has the option to eventually introduce a post-knock burn acceleration, when knock occurs, a spontaneous
mass burning rate due to knock is determined and fed back to the cylinder, leading to rapid rise in cylinder
pressure and temperature. The in-cylinder heat transfer coefficient is also increased during knock. Combustion
is then governed by the post-knock burn time scale as shown below:

Where ft is the post-knock burn scale multiplier, B0 a frequency factor, A/F the air-to-fuel ratio of the unburned
end gas, Ta the activation temperature, Tf the adiabatic flame temperature. The fuel burn rate in the post-knock
period is assumed to be constant and is calculated as:

While air is burned proportionally at a rate given by:

where mfvapor is the unburned fuel vapor mass at the time of knock and mfliquid the nburned fuel liquid mass
at the time of knock.

Page 4 of 13
The engine is turbo charged with a fixed geometry turbine, and it has charge cooling, waste gate and exhaust
gas recirculation. The main engine parameters are presented in Table 1. Fuel is directly injected within the
cylinder and the engine is running stoichiometric to lower the emission of pollutants below Euro 4 standards
with a three way catalytic converter (TWC). The engine has four valves per cylinder. Piston is modified to run
ethanol with an increased compression ratio 13:1 and better deal with the different fuel spray.

The injection pressure from the fast actuating, multiple event high pressure injector is increased from 200 to 300
bar with ethanol. With E100, the DI injector maximum flow rate shall be increased since E100 only contains
66% of gasoline energy in volume. The problem was solved using a higher pressure GDI injector specifically
developed for much larger engines (the displaced volume for a single cylinder of this engine is only 0.4 liters).
Injection is always performed after Intake Valve Closure (IVC). This has the advantage of injecting into hotter
gas which helps to insure complete vaporization of the ethanol and prevents or minimizes wall wetting. The
engine has the option to be controlled by throttle and by reducing the intake valve lift.

Table 1 - Engine parameters.

Bore B [mm] 80
Stroke S [mm] 80
Bore to Stroke ratio B/S 1
Connecting rod length [mm] 135
Compression ratio CR (gasoline) 9:1
Compression ratio CR (ethanol) 13:1
Intake valve reference diameter Di [mm] 27
Exhaust valve reference diameter De [mm] 24
Intake valve maximum lift hi [mm] 8.5
Exhaust valve maximum lift he [mm] 8.5
Intake valve opening IVO [º crank angle] 350º (10º BTDC)
Intake valve closure IVC [º crank angle] 580º (40º ABDC)
Exhaust valve opening EVO [º crank angle] 140 º (40º BBDC)
Exhaust valve closure EVO [º crank angle] 370 º (10º ATDC)

Simulations have been performed with indolene C7.3H13.9 and ethanol C2H6O1 as liquid fuels. Figures 1 to 4
present computational results obtained for normalized knock intensity and brake power, torque and efficiency.
These points have been computed with wide open throttle (WOT) and maximum brake torque or knock limited
spark advance. Normalized knock intensity results show that despite the much higher compression ratio, the
ethanol engine is less sensitive to knock than the gasoline engine, with knock intensities less than half in the
point of maximum boost from the turbo charger. The lower knock intensity is a result of the lower in-cylinder
temperatures following vaporization of the ethanol fuel as well as the higher RON of ethanol. Power and torque
results show the E100 engine delivers much better performance. Improvements vary from 20 to 28% over the
range of engine speed. Maximum torque and power outputs are increased 20% and 23% respectively. In terms
of fuel conversion efficiency, it increases with E100 17 to 23%, or 5.70 to 6.25 points over the range of engine
speeds.

These results are quite interesting, because the direct injection, turbo charged engine specifically designed for
running ethanol, basically with few hardware modifications from a gasoline engine, may have much better fuel
conversion efficiencies and power densities, while today's port fuel injected naturally aspirated flex-fuel engines
still have a significant penalty in efficiency running E85 when reference is made to the base gasoline engine.
Page 5 of 13
 1.0
gasoline
0.9
E100
0.8
Normalized Knock Intensity Ki []

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500
Engine Speed N [RPM]

Figure 1 - Computed normalized knock intensity for gasoline and E100 engines.

40.0
gasoline

37.5 E100

35.0
Engine Brake Efficiency ht []

32.5

30.0

27.5

25.0

22.5

20.0
500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500
Engine Speed N [RPM]

Figure 2 - Computed engine brake efficiency for gasoline and E100 engines.

Page 6 of 13
 400
gasoline

350 E100
Engine Brake Torque Tb [N*m]

300

250

200

150

100

50
500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500
Engine Speed N [RPM]

Figure 3 - Computed engine brake torque for gasoline and E100 engines.

150
gasoline

E100
125
Engine Brake Power Pb [kW]

100

75

50

25

0
500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500
Engine Speed N [RPM]

Figure 4 - Computed engine brake power for gasoline and E100 engines.

Page 7 of 13
Further benefits in terms of fuel economy may derive from the further downsizing of the E100 engine having
higher boost pressures and compression ratios. A reduction in displacement implies the engine will be used over
a cycle with a proportional increase in BMEP, with the embedded benefits in terms of efficiency running higher
BMEP especially significant in throttle-controlled stoichiometric engines.

Downsizing and turbo charging and direct injection may be combined with electronic valve control [11] to
better deal with the challenges of fuel economy enhancement. The main issue of the spark ignition engine is the
pumping losses at part load due to the traditional throttle-based load control. The throttle-less spark ignition
engine control systems through variable valve actuation exhibits almost the same advantages of the traditional
load control by quantity of fuel injected of Diesel engines. The use of a stoichiometric air-to-fuel mixture would
permits to meet emissions standards without the negative impacts on the after treatment technology that the lean
stratified operation would introduce. The electro-hydraulic variable valve actuation technology may be applied
to both intake and exhaust valves to fully modify the lift profiles as needed by the engine operation. In addition
to valve timing strategies as early intake valve closure or late intake valve opening, valve lift strategies are also
possible with variable valve actuation. Valve lift strategies may be used to control the air quantity and the
tumble charge motion in the cylinder.

Only valve lift variations are considered here to control the load. However, the variable valve actuation
technology offers the potential to improve other critical areas of spark ignition engines, including better
charging efficiency over the range of engine speeds and loads, improved dynamic response, better combustion
evolution, improved operation during catalyst light-off time. The electro-hydraulic variable valve actuation
technology is used here just to change the maximum lift to reduce the load. Better performances may be
achieved fully exploiting all the benefits of the technology.

Figures 5 and 6 show the computed engine brake efficiency and mean effective pressure for the E100 engine
changing the maximum intake valve lift. Controlling the load by variable valve actuation is effective in
producing high efficiencies from 25% of full load.

First European test cycle with extra urban driving cycle (NEDC) simulations have then been finally performed
for a large passenger car sedan with the Lotus Vehicle Simulation software [15]. The main vehicle parameters
are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 - Vehicle parameters.

Mass M [kg] 1810

Frontal area A [m2] 2.250
Drag coefficient CD 0.298
Rolling tyre radius R [m] 0.3160
Transmission 5-speed automatic
Transmission ratios 3.22/2.29/1.55/1.00/0.75
Final drive ratio 2.730

The 4 liter, in-line six cylinder, throttle body controlled, naturally aspirated gasoline engine with max. power
190 kW and maximum torque 380 N·m is replaced by the high tech, 1.6 liter, in-line four, valve lift controlled,
turbo charged E100 engine described above, having 140 kW maximum power and 365 N·m maximum torque.
Vehicle, tyre, driveline and gearbox data are kept constant.

Page 8 of 13
 40.0

37.5

35.0
Engine Brake Efficiency t []

32.5

30.0

27.5
IVL100%
IVL50%
25.0 IVL25%
IVL12.5%
12bar BMEP
22.5 7.5bar BMEP
4.25bar BMEP
3.75bar BMEP
20.0
500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500
Engine Speed N [RPM]

Figure 5 - Computed engine brake efficiency for the E100 engine changing the maximum intake valve lift.

30
IVL100%
Engine Brake Mean Effective Pressure BMEP [bar]

27 IVL50%
IVL25%
24 IVL12.5%

21

18

15

12

0
500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500
Engine Speed N [RPM]

Figure 6 - Computed engine brake mean effective pressure for the E100 engine changing the maximum intake
valve lift.

Page 9 of 13
 25.0
4 liters NA gasoline
Engine Brake Mean Effective Pressure BMEP [bar]

22.5

20.0

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0
500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
Engine Speed N [RPM]

Figure 7 - Computed engine brake mean effective pressure during the NEDC for the naturally aspirated 4 liters
gasoline engine.

25.0
1.6 liter TC E100
Engine Brake Mean Effective Pressure BMEP [bar]

22.5

20.0

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0
500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
Engine Speed N [RPM]

Figure 8 - Computed engine brake mean effective pressure during the NEDC for the turbocharged 1.6 liters
E100 engine.
Page 10 of 13
Figures 7 and 8 present the operating BMEP points vs. engine speed for the two engines. The displacement
effect shifts up by a factor of 4/1.6 the operating BMEP. The naturally aspirated gasoline engine works the most
of the time at 1.5 bar BMEP and 1500 rpm, while the turbocharged E100 engine works the most of the time at
3.75 bar BMEP and 1500 rpm.

The gasoline engine uses 936 g of a fuel having LHV=43.2 MJ/Kg and density 750 kg/m3 to cover over the
1180 s total cycle time the 11.028 km distance travelled of the NEDC, for a fuel consumption of 11.3 liters per
100 km. Even if the transmission is not optimized for the new engine, and no weight reduction is considered
replacing the large naturally aspirated gasoline engine with the smaller turbo charged E100 engine, this latter
engine only uses 897 g of a fuel having LHV=26.8 MJ/Kg and density 786 kg/m3, for a fuel consumption of
10.365 liters per 100 km. In terms of fuel energy, the small high tech E100 engine therefore uses 40% less fuel
energy than one large naturally aspirated low tech gasoline engine, permitting an even better driving range with
one full fuel tank despite of the much lower energy content of E100. This is due to the higher BMEP permitted
by downsizing (2.5 times larger operating BMEP following the displacement ratio), the larger top brake
efficiency permitted by high compression ratio, the cooling due to direct injection cooling, the high boost from
turbo charging partially recovering the exhaust waste heat, the spark advances closer to maximum brake torque,
and the larger part load efficiencies due to the factors above plus the load control throttle-less by changing the
lift of the intake valves.

CONCLUSIONS
Direct fuel injection and turbo charging are the key features pure ethanol engines should have to take full
advantage of ethanol’s higher research octane number and higher heat of vaporization. Direct injection permits
to cool down the charge and improve the knock tendency. Turbo charging recover part of the exhaust energy.
Direct injection and turbo charging permits higher compression ratio, higher boost pressure and spark advances
less knock limited and closer to maximum brake torque for improved fuel conversion efficiency and increased
power density.

The increased fuel conversion efficiency and the increased power density considerably improve fuel economy.
The increased fuel conversion efficiency reduces the amount of fuel requested for a certain BMEP, the
increased power density, through downsizing, permits operation at higher BMEP during the driving cycles
having better efficiencies.

The proposed direct injection, turbo charged engine differs in the direct injector operating pressure and the
piston shape and compression ratio to efficiently run with E100 and gasoline. The E100 has an increased
injection pressure (300 bar vs. 200 bar) and an increased compression ratio (13:1 vs. 9:1). Improvements in
power and torque vary from 20 to 28% over the range of engine speed, while the fuel conversion efficiency
increases 17 to 23%, or 5.70 to 6.25 points, up to values about 40%.

Despite of the higher compression ratio, the closer to maximum brake torque spark advances and the reduced
opening of the waste gate controlling the turbine, the E100 still have much better resistance to knock than the
gasoline engine, thus leaving space for further improvements.

Variable valve actuation has been considered only for throttle-less load control. Changes of intake valve lift are
effective in reducing the penalty in efficiency dropping the load. Brake efficiencies larger than those of today's
naturally aspirated gasoline engines are obtained from 25% of full load over the full range of engine speed.

Page 11 of 13
When compared to a low tech 4 liters, throttle controlled, naturally aspirated gasoline engine to power a large
passenger car sedan, the small high tech turbo charged E100 engine with variable valve actuation use 43% less
fuel energy over the NEDC.

Further advances may be obtained through turbo compounding, not only for the more efficient two stage
compression, but also for the option to produce in the turbines additional mechanical work to the crank shaft,
and use of higher efficiencies compressor and turbines. Complete variable actuation of intake and exhaust
valves and advanced exhaust gas recirculation may also further help improving performance at part loads. This
activity is currently in progress.

Better efficiencies both top and part load can possibly be achieved with lean burn technologies. However,
considering lean burn emissions control technologies are much less developed than stoichiometric three way
catalytic converter technologies for emissions control, meeting emission standards would be much more
difficult. Furthermore, lean burn would reduce the power density, with the resulting issues running lower
BMEP during a cycle.

REFERENCES
1. [Link] (retrieved January 13, 2010).
2. [Link] (retrieved January 13, 2010).
3. D. Bradley, “Combustion and the design of future engine fuels”, Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part C: J.
Mechanical Engineering Science JMES1519. DOI: 10.1243/ 09544062JMES1519.
4. H. Takashi and T. Kimitoshi, "Laminar flame speeds of ethanol, n-heptane, isooctane air mixtures", Student
Papers from FISITA 2006 world conference. FISITA F2006SC40.
[Link]/education/congress/sc06papers/[Link] (retrieved January 8, 2010).
5. L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, J.B. Heywood, "Calculations of knock suppression in highly turbocharged
gasoline/ethanol engines using direct ethanol injection", MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
Report LFEE 2006-001.
[Link]/[Link] (retrieved January 14, 2010).
6. Brusstar, M., and Bakenhus, M., "Economical, high-efficiency engine technologies for alcohol fuels".
[Link] (retrieved January 15, 2010).
7. West, B., "Enhanced Ethanol Engine And Vehicle Efficiency (Agreement 13425)", paper presented to the
Energy 2008 Office of Vehicle Technologies Annual Merit Review Bethesda, Maryland, February 2008.
[Link]
8. Brewster, S., " Initial Development of a Turbo-charged Direct Injection E100 Combustion System", SAE P.
2007-01-3625.
[Link] (retrieved January 15, 2010).
9. Brewster, S., et al., The Effect of E100 Water Content on High Load Performance of a Spray Guide Direct
Injection Boosted Engine", SAE P. 2007-01-2648.
[Link] (retrieved January 15, 2010).
10. [Link] (retrieved January 8, 2010).
11. [Link] (retrieved January 18,
2010).
12. Goto, O., et al., "Honda Formula One Turbo-charged V6 1.5L Engine", SAE P. 890877.
13. Morel, T., et al., "Model for Heat Transfer and Combustion in Spark Ignited Engines and Its Comparison
with Experiments", SAE P. 880198.
14. Douaud, A. M. and P. Eyzat. "Four-Octane-Number Method for Predicting the Anti-Knock Behavior of
Fuels and Engines", SAE P. 780080.
Page 12 of 13
15. [Link] (retrieved January 20, 2010).
16. "Cold Start on the Transparent Engine: Ethanol Direct Injection in Turbo-Charged Spark-Ignited Engines",
in AVL Combustion Measurement Newsletter Edition 2008: Combustion Analysis in Racing.
[Link] (retrieved February 17, 2010).
17. Hakan Sandquist, Maria Karlsson, Ingemar Denbratt, "Influence of Ethanol Content in Gasoline on
Speciated Emissions From a Direct-Injection Stratified Charge SI Engine", SAE P. 2001-01-1206.
18. Wei Zeng, Min Xu, Ming Zhang, Yuyin Zhang, David Cleary , "Characterization of Methanol and Ethanol
Sprays from Different DI Injectors by Using Mie-Scattering and Laser Induced Fluorescence at Potential
Engine Cold-Start Conditions", SAE P. 2010-01-0602 .
19. Stina Hemdal, Jonas Warnberg, Ingemar Denbratt, Petter Dahlander , "Stratified Cold Start Sprays of
Gasoline-Ethanol Blends", SAE P. 2009-01-1496.
20. Atsushi Matsumoto, Yi Zheng, Xing-Bin Xie, Ming-Chia Lai, Wayne R. Moore, Matthew Foster, Keith
Confer, Eunjoo Hopkins, David Yen, "Spray Characterization of Ethanol Gasoline Blends and Comparison
to a CFD Model for a Gasoline Direct Injector", SAE P. 2010-01-0601.
21. Stephan Liebsch, Oliver Dingel, Jochen Maass, Michael Guenther , Matthias Kratzsch , Steffen Zwahr,
"Model Based E85 Cold Start Optimization for DISI Engines", SAE P. 2009-01-1909.
22. Craig D. Marriott, Matthew Wiles, J. Michael Gwidt, Scott E. Parrish, "Development of a Naturally
Aspirated Spark Ignition Direct Injected Flex-Fuel Engine", SAE P. 2008-01-0319.
23. Paul E. Kapus, Alois Fuerhapter, H. Fuchs, Guenter K. Fraidl, "Ethanol Direct Injection on Turbocharged SI
Engines - Potential and Challenges", SAE P. 2007-01-1408.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Alberto Boretti, School of Science and Engineering, University of Ballarat, PO Box 663, Ballarat, Victoria
3353, Australia, email: aboretti@[Link].

Page 13 of 13