Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016

2013-01-1678
Published 04/08/2013
Copyright © 2013 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2013-01-1678
saefuel.saejournals.org

Effect of Cetane Improvers on Gasoline, Ethanol, and Methanol

Reactivity and the Implications for RCCI Combustion
Adam B. Dempsey, N. Ryan Walker and Rolf Reitz
Univ. of Wisconsin

ABSTRACT
The focus of the present study was to characterize the fuel reactivity of high octane number fuels (i.e., low fuel
reactivity), namely gasoline, ethanol, and methanol when mixed with cetane improvers under lean, premixed combustion
conditions. Two commercially available cetane improvers, 2-ethylhexyl nitrate and di-tert-butyl peroxide, were used in the
study. First, blends of the primary reference fuels iso-octane and n-heptane were port injected under fixed operating
conditions. The resulting combustion phasings were used to generate effective PRF number maps. Then, blends of the
aforementioned base fuels and cetane improvers were tested under the same lean premixed conditions as the PRF blends.
Based on the combustion phasing results of the base fuel and cetane improver mixture, the effective PRF number, or
octane number, could be determined. In all three base fuels it was found that 2-ethylhexyl nitrate is more effective at
increasing fuel reactivity compared to di-tert-butyl peroxide. However, 2-ethylhexyl nitrate has a potential disadvantage
due its nitrate group, which can manifest itself as NOx emissions. The relationship between the fuel-bound nitrate group
and the engine-out NOx emissions was extensively characterized in the present study. It was also observed that methanol's
response to cetane improvers was better than that of ethanol, in spite of the fact that they have similar octane numbers in
their neat form. Once the reactivity of the base fuels was characterized, two mixtures of methanol and cetane improvers
were selected and compared to diesel fuel as the high reactivity fuel (i.e., direct injected) for RCCI combustion.

CITATION: Dempsey, A., Walker, N. and Reitz, R., "Effect of Cetane Improvers on Gasoline, Ethanol, and Methanol
Reactivity and the Implications for RCCI Combustion," SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 6(1):2013, doi:10.4271/2013-01-1678.
____________________________________

INTRODUCTION control the timing of combustion on a cycle-to-cycle basis

RCCI Background & Motivation for
Current Study
In an effort to reduce NOx and soot emissions while
maintaining high thermal efficiency, many new compression
ignition combustion strategies have been proposed.
Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) is a
concept that has been researched for many years and was
initially studied in four-stroke engines [1]. HCCI combustion
has been shown to have superior characteristics in terms of
thermal efficiency, which results from lower heat transfer
losses and shorter combustion durations. In addition, the lean,
low temperature combustion process yields near zero NOx
and soot emissions.
Although fully premixed HCCI combustion appears
thermodynamically attractive, it is entirely controlled by
chemical kinetics, which means the in-cylinder temperature,
pressure, equivalence ratio, and fuel reactivity (i.e., octane
number) will govern when ignition occurs. This presents a
controllability challenge because there is no direct means to
when the fuel is completely premixed. However, utilizing
fuel injections during the negative valve overlap (NVO)
period has shown promise as a means to control HCCI
combustion phasing [2]. These results have been confined to
low-load operation and require costly variable valve train
systems. In addition, the HCCI combustion process is very
rapid which leads to excessive pressure rise rates and possible
engine damage.
Finally, Bessonette et al. [3] demonstrated experimentally
that the best fuel for HCCI operation has autoignition
qualities between that of diesel fuel and gasoline, depending
on the operating condition. For instance, they demonstrated
that at 16 bar BMEP the most suitable fuel had an octane
number of ∼81. However, at 2 bar BMEP a cetane number of
∼45 (i.e., a traditional diesel fuel) was required for stable
operation. Thus, it seems that exploring fuel blends for
specific operating conditions would be beneficial. These
advantages and challenges of HCCI combustion have
motivated the investigation of Partially Premixed Combustion
(PPC) concepts.

170
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)
Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI) is a
dual fuel partially premixed combustion concept developed
by Kokjohn et al. [4]. In this strategy, a low reactivity fuel,
such as gasoline, is premixed via port fuel injection (PFI) and
a high reactivity fuel, such as diesel fuel, is direct injected
(DI) during the compression stroke. This process of in-
cylinder fuel blending develops fuel reactivity gradients in
the combustion chamber. The stratification of fuel reactivity
results in a broad combustion event and reduced pressure rise
rates compared to fully premixed HCCI combustion. Using a
suite of optical diagnostics Kokjohn has gone on to
demonstrate that RCCI is a chemically controlled combustion
process, similar to HCCI [5]. The direct injection events are
sufficiently early during the compression stroke that the peak
equivalence ratio at the start of combustion remains very lean
(i.e., equivalence ratio < 0.5). This results in sequential
autoignition events beginning at the regions of highest fuel
reactivity and progressing down the reactivity gradient. In
addition, Kokjohn has shown that flame propagation plays an
indistinguishable role during the combustion process due to
the very lean equivalence ratios [5].
The majority of RCCI combustion research conducted to
date has used port injected gasoline and direct injected diesel
fuel [6]. There are potential disadvantages of a combustion
strategy that requires two different base fuels (e.g., two fuel
tanks). However, considering that RCCI combustion only
requires that a fuel reactivity gradient be present in the
combustion chamber, it has been proposed to use port
injected low reactivity fuel and direct inject the same low
reactivity fuel mixed with a small percentage of a cetane
improver to serve as the high reactivity fuel. With this
approach, the vehicle would require a single fuel tank (i.e.,
the low reactivity fuel, such as gasoline) and an additive tank,
which would need to be roughly the same size as a diesel
exhaust fluid (DEF) tank, depending on the additive doping
level [7]. Thus, the main goal of the present study was to
characterize the potential of low reactivity fuels, namely
gasoline, ethanol, methanol, and blends of the alcohols and
gasoline when mixed with cetane improvers to understand
how they will perform as the high reactivity fuel during RCCI
operation.
Previous Research with Cetane Improvers
EHN & DTBP
Splitter et al. [7] were among the first to investigate the
aforementioned concept on a heavy duty diesel engine, in
which they port injected gasoline and direct injected gasoline
mixed with small amounts of di-tert-butyl peroxide (DTBP).
They found that RCCI combustion could be achieved by
mixing as little as 2% by volume DTBP into the direct
injected gasoline. Kaddatz et al. [8] conducted similar
research on a light duty diesel engine. Considering that the
majority of pump gasoline in the United States today has
been blended with up to 10% ethanol by volume (i.e., E10),
Kaddatz et al. investigated using E10 mixed with 3% by
171
volume 2-ethylhexyl nitrate (EHN) as the high reactivity fuel
for RCCI combustion. They made comparisons to gasoline/
diesel RCCI and found that more E10+EHN was required
compared to diesel fuel to achieve similar combustion
phasing. This suggests that diesel fuel is more reactive than
E10 mixed with 3% by volume EHN. Kaddatz et al. also
showed that for RCCI operation with gasoline/diesel, if the
direct injection timings were sufficiently advanced, start of
injection command of −36° ATDC and earlier, the NOx
emissions went to essentially zero. However, as the direct
injection timings were advanced using E10+EHN as the high
reactivity fuel, the NOx emissions converged to one-third of
the fuel-bound NO from the EHN. This potential
disadvantage of using EHN as a reactivity enhancer will be
discussed in detail in the present study.
The impact of cetane improvers on fully premixed HCCI
combustion has previously been investigated as well. Mack et
al. [9] demonstrated the effect of adding DTBP to blends of
ethanol and diethyl ether during HCCI combustion. They
found that the addition of DTBP did not elongate the heat
release nor did it allow for stable retardation of the
combustion phasing. However, they found that the
combustion did advance by approximately 3° CA for 3%
DTBP in ethanol. Eng et al. [10] studied the effect of adding
DTBP to gasoline during HCCI operation with the goal of
extending the low load limit. They found that from 0 to 2%
DTBP addition, the low load limit was reduced by 23%.
However, from 2% to 15% DTBP addition the low load limit
was only reduced by an additional 10%. This data suggests
that DTBP added to gasoline exhibits a very non-linear
behavior in terms of increasing the gasoline's reactivity. In
both of the aforementioned studies on HCCI combustion with
cetane improvers (i.e., [9, 10]) it was discussed that the
effects of ignition promoters are currently not totally
understood. There is some evidence that suggests the ignition
promoting effect is due simply to a temperature increase,
stemming from low temperature heat release. However, other
researchers argue that the effect is chemical in nature and due
to the fact that chain propagating and chain branching
reactions are accelerated by the decomposition of the cetane
improver. The present study supports the latter chemical
effect.
Of course, the effect of cetane improvers on diesel fuel
under mixing limited conditions (i.e., high equivalence ratios)
has been studied extensively. Schwab et al. [11] studied the
effect of EHN and DTBP on two different diesel fuels. Figure
1 illustrates their findings, in which regardless of the cetane
number of the base fuel, as the cetane improvers are added,
the cetane number increase (i.e., reactivity increase) is more
rapid with EHN than with DTBP.
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016
172 Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)
Figure 1. Effect of EHN & DTBP on the cetane number
of diesel fuel under conventional diesel operation [11].
Characterizing High Octane Number Fuels
Mixed with Cetane Improvers
As mentioned previously, the main goal of this work was
to characterize low reactivity fuels mixed with cetane
improvers to evaluate how well they will perform as the high
reactivity fuel during RCCI operation. First, an experiment
representative of the thermodynamic conditions experienced
by the directed injected fuel during RCCI combustion needed
to be selected. Figure 2 shows a representative RCCI
operating condition in which 85% of the total fuel is
premixed gasoline and the remaining 15% is direct injected
diesel fuel. The diesel was injected using a double injection
strategy with the first injection at −61° ATDC and the second
at −41° ATDC.
Figure 2. Typical RCCI injection strategy and
subsequent AHRR operating with gasoline & diesel fuel.
Figure 3. Predicted equivalence ratio distribution from
CFD simulations with 85% premixed gasoline and 15%
direct injected diesel fuel.
Figure 2 also shows the resulting apparent heat release
rate (AHRR) for this mid-load operating condition. Figure 3
shows the equivalence ratio distribution in the combustion
chamber at −18° ATDC predicted by CFD simulations using
KIVA3V. As can be seen, the background equivalence ratio
from the premixed gasoline is 0.3. The direct injected diesel
fuel provides some equivalence ratio stratification, with a
peak equivalence ratio in the chamber of 0.5. The majority of
the direct injected fuel exists at an equivalence ratio between
0.32 and 0.34, which is nearly the background equivalence
ratio. Thus, a lean, premixed combustion experiment would
serve as a representative operating condition for the high
reactivity fuel during RCCI operation.
Objectives
The main focus of the current study was to investigate
RCCI combustion in a light duty engine using a single low
reactivity fuel, mainly alcohols, and the low reactivity fuel
mixed with cetane improvers to serve as the high reactivity
fuel. This concept has been demonstrated previously by
Splitter et al. [7] and Kaddatz et al. [8], but the amount of
cetane improver used was arbitrarily chosen. In this study, the
reactivity of the base fuels (i.e., gasoline, ethanol, methanol,
and alcohol/gasoline blends) was characterized when mixed
with cetane improvers EHN and DTBP. The goal was to
understand how the base fuel's reactivity changes and if these
low reactivity fuels could be utilized as high reactivity fuels
for RCCI combustion when mixed with cetane improvers.
SINGLE CYLINDER LIGHT DUTY
DIESEL ENGINE LABORATORY
The experiments were carried out on a light duty, four-
stroke diesel engine based on the General Motors 1.9L
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)
platform. Table 1 shows the engine and fuel injector
specifications and Figure 4 provides a schematic of the single
cylinder engine laboratory. With a bore of 82.0 mm and
stroke of 90.4 mm this engine is representative of a light duty
automotive diesel engine with four valves per cylinder driven
by dual overhead cams. A stock four-cylinder head is
installed atop a single cylinder block with only the valves for
cylinder #2 activated by the cams.
Table 1. GM 1.9L Single Cylinder Engine Specifications
Figure 4. GM 1.9L Single Cylinder Engine Laboratory
173
Multiple combustion strategies were investigated in this
study, namely HCCI and RCCI. HCCI operation was
achieved with two port fuel injectors mounted in the intake
runner. The point of fuel injection is approximately 30 cm
upstream of the intake valves. For RCCI operation, the low
reactivity fuel was delivered through the same port fuel
injectors and the high reactivity fuel was delivered with a
centrally mounted common rail injector.
Engine controls and data acquisition were handled
through National Instruments LabView software. A Kistler
6125A pressure transducer in series with a Kistler 4010
charge amplifier was used to measure the in-cylinder
pressure. A shaft encoder with 1440 pulses per revolution
was used, which supplies a resolution of 0.25 crank angle
degrees. For each operating point 300 consecutive cycles of
cylinder pressure data were acquired. Each individual cycle's
pressure data was smoothed using a Fourier series low-pass
filter with a Gaussian roll-off function having a transmission
of 100% from 0 to 1600 Hz and dropping to 1% at 6720 Hz.
Once filtered, the collected cycles were ensemble averaged to
yield a representative cylinder pressure trace, which was used
to calculate the apparent heat release rate (AHRR) and, in
turn, determine combustion phasing. The AHRR is
essentially the chemical heat release rate minus the heat loss
rate to the combustion chamber walls and is given by
(1)
From the AHRR, the accumulated heat release can be
determined. The combustion phasing was calculated to be the
crank angle at which the accumulated heat release had
reached 50% of its maximum, denoted as CA50.
CHARACTERIZATION OF HIGH
OCTANE NUMBER FUELS MIXED
WITH CETANE IMPROVERS
Engine Operating Conditions & Reference
Combustion Phasing Maps
As mentioned previously, the RCCI direct injection
strategy creates equivalence ratio and octane number
stratification in the combustion chamber. In Figure 3 it was
shown that the equivalence ratio distribution just prior to
ignition remains lean (equivalence ratios < 0.5). Therefore,
lean fully premixed HCCI combustion was chosen as the
strategy to study the impact of cetane improvers on high
octane number fuels. The engine operating conditions that
were used to create the reference maps is shown in Table 2.
These engine operating parameters were fixed throughout the
study regardless of the base fuel, and two different
equivalence ratios were investigated: 0.26 and 0.3.
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016

174 Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)

Table 2. Fixed Engine Operating Conditions for HCCI

In order to characterize the reactivity of the base fuels

(i.e., gasoline, ethanol, and methanol) under lean, premixed
combustion conditions, a reference combustion phasing map
was created. This was accomplished by blending the primary
reference fuels, iso-octane and n-heptane, in the intake runner
via separate port fuel injectors (PFIs). In order to span a wide
range of reactivities (i.e., PRF numbers), the intake
temperature was varied widely in steps of 15°C. The resulting
combustion phasing maps are shown in Figure 5 and Figure
6. In these figures, the combustion phasing (CA50) is plotted
as a function of the mass based PRF number, which is
defined in Equation (2). As can be seen in the figures, at a
fixed intake temperature, as the PRF # is increased, the
combustion phasing is retarded. In addition, at a fixed PRF #,
as the intake temperature is decreased, the combustion
phasing is retarded.
Figure 6. Reference combustion phasing (CA50) map
with PRF fuels at an equivalence ratio of 0.3
Figure 7 shows the net cycle indicated specific NOx
emissions (ISNOx) when operating with the PRF fuels at
equivalence ratio of 0.3. Regardless of the PRF #, which as
indicated in Figure 6 spans a combustion range of 8° CA,
NOx emissions are very low at less than 0.01 g/kW-hr. This
suggests that the peak in-cylinder temperatures are low. This
observation will be important when comparing to results with
EHN, which has a fuel-bound nitrate group and has the
potential to yield fuel-bound NOx emissions.

(2)
Limits were set on the peak pressure rise rate and the
coefficient of variation (COV) of engine load (i.e., indicated
mean effective pressure, IMEP), at 10 bar/deg. and 10%,
respectively. Thus, at a given intake temperature, the most
advanced combustion phasing produced a peak pressure rise
rate of 10 bar/deg. and the most retarded phasing had a COV
of IMEP approaching 10%. These combustion phasing results
with primary reference fuels will serve as references to
Figure 7. Indicated specfic NOx emissions as a function
determine the effective PRF # of the base fuels mixed with
of the PRF # at an equivalence ratio of 0.3
cetane improvers.

Fuel Properties & Intake Temperature

Figure 5. Reference combustion phasing (CA50) map
with PRF fuels at an equivalence ratio of 0.26
Corrections for the Base Fuels
The physical and chemical properties of the primary
reference fuels, the tested base fuels, and the cetane
improvers are shown in Table 3. All the fuels used in this
study are extremely volatile, which ensured that a
homogeneous premixed charge was created in the
combustion chamber. As can be seen in the table, a marked
difference between the fuels is the enthalpy of vaporization
and the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. The alcohol fuels have
much higher charge cooling potential and a smaller
stoichiometric air fuel ratio compared to gasoline and the
primary reference fuels. Thus, to achieve the fixed global
equivalence ratios shown in Table 2, the fueling rate for the
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013) 175

alcohol fuels must be increased. This serves to amplify the

charge cooling effect of the alcohols. Considering the focus
of this study is the combustion kinetics of the base fuels with
cetane improvers, it is important that the bulk gas temperature
at the start of compression (i.e., intake valve closure, IVC)
remain constant for a given intake temperature (Tin).
Therefore, corrections were made to the intake temperature
when using the alcohol fuels based on estimates from one
dimensional cycle simulations which accounted for the
charge cooling from port injected alcohols [12]. It should be
noted that because the enthalpy of vaporization of gasoline
and the reference fuels is similar, no intake temperature
corrections were made for gasoline. Figure 8 illustrates these
parameters in the current experimental setup. The engine
intake temperature (Tin) is measured at the exit of the intake
surge tank, just prior to the point of port fuel injection. The
intake temperature, amount of fuel port injected, intake Figure 9. Cycle simulation results used to estimate the
runner wall temperature, and in-cylinder wall temperatures in-cylinder bulk gas temperature at IVC as a function of
are all boundary conditions for the cycle simulation. intake temperature and port injected fuel composition.

Figure 10. Required intake temperatures as a function of

the volume % alcohol-in-gasoline to achieve a matched
IVC temperature to the reference fuels.

Figure 8. Illustration of the engine parameters for HCCI

combustion experiments. (Note the piston profile shown
in this illustration is the stock piston used in both the
HCCI and RCCI experiments).
The results of the cycle simulations are shown in Figure 9
at an equivalence ratio of 0.26. The plot illustrates the
estimated in-cylinder bulk gas temperature at IVC as a
function of the intake temperature (Tin). As can be seen the
nominal fueling rates were: PRF fuels and gasoline ∼ 9 mg/
cyc, ethanol ∼ 14 mg/cyc, and methanol ∼ 19 mg/cyc.
With no port fuel injection at this operating condition,
there is a nominal increase in the gas temperature from the
intake surge tank to IVC of 28°C. If the PRF fuels or gasoline
are port injected, it is estimated that a slight (∼ 5°C) charge
cooling effect will be experienced. However, if ethanol and
methanol are port injected the charge cooling impact is much
more significant. As mentioned previously, in order to study
the chemical impact of cetane improvers on different base
fuels, it is important that the thermodynamic conditions at the
start of compression be matched to the reference fuels. Figure
10 shows the required intake temperature to achieve a fixed
IVC temperature as a function of the volume % alcohol-in-
gasoline. Two of the original intake temperatures used with
the primary references fuels are shown here, namely 60 and
90°C. At the far left (i.e., 0% alcohol-in-gasoline) are the
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016

176 Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)

Table 3. Physical and chemical properties of the liquid fuels tested using HCCI combustion

intake temperatures used for the reference fuels and gasoline.
At the far right (i.e., 100% alcohol-in-gasoline) are the intake
temperatures used for neat ethanol and neat methanol. The
data points in between show the various gasoline/alcohol
blends investigated in this study, all with a unique intake
temperature requirements. The intake temperatures outlined
in Figure 10 where used for both equivalence ratios
investigated here. These two intake conditions will be
referred to throughout the study as ∼60°C and ∼90°C.
The base fuels under investigation were tested in the same
manner as the primary reference fuels. The engine operating
conditions were shown in Table 2 and the intake temperatures
are shown in Figure 10. Again, dual fuel HCCI combustion
was achieved via the use of two port fuel injectors. However,
instead of fueling with the primary reference fuels, one port
injector was supplied with the neat base fuel and the other
with the base fuel aggressively mixed with a cetane improver
(i.e., 10 to 15% cetane improver depending on the base fuel).
Using this approach, the global in-cylinder mixture of base
fuel and cetane improver could be varied nearly
instantaneously, allowing the data to be collected in a timely
manner.
Gasoline/EHN Mixtures
Figure 11 shows the combustion phasing results for
gasoline/EHN mixtures at an equivalence ratio of 0.26. It can
be seen that as the percentage of EHN in gasoline is
increased, the combustion phasing advances considerably.
Also, as expected, as the intake temperature is increased the
combustion phasing advances as well. Figure 11 is shown as
an example, but regardless of the base fuel or cetane
improver the trends remain the same. Therefore, for the sake
of brevity plots of the combustion phasing for every base fuel
will not be shown.
The combustion phasing results can be used to derive an
effective PRF # by referring back to the primary reference
fuel maps shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The resulting
effective PRF # for the gasoline/EHN mixtures is shown in
Figure 12, where the results for both equivalence ratios and
two intake temperatures are plotted. As can be seen, the
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)
effective PRF # displays no observable dependence on the
equivalence ratio.
Figure 11. Combustion phasing (CA50) results for
gasoline/EHN mixtures at an equivalence ratio of 0.26
Figure 12. Effective PRF # derived from reference
combustion phasing maps for gasoline/EHN mixtures
Dec et al. [14] pointed out that gasoline autoignition
chemistry is not sensitive to the equivalence ratio at low
intake pressure conditions (i.e., less than ∼2.0 bar intake
pressure). Thus, considering the intake pressure used in the
current study was sufficiently low at 1.1 bar, it is expected
that the ignition timing of the gasoline would be relatively
independent of equivalence ratio. Additionally, the effective
PRF # of the gasoline/EHN mixtures is not sensitive to the
intake temperature. This is expected because the gasoline
used in this study has a relatively low fuel sensitivity (i.e.,
RON minus MON), as can be seen in Table 3. The reason
conventional gasoline displays relatively low fuel sensitivity
is because gasoline is mainly composed of paraffin
compounds, which is the same class of hydrocarbon as the
primary reference fuels. Thus, they display similar chemical
behavior. However, the small amount of fuel sensitivity that
the tested gasoline does have is not captured in the current
study because of the relatively small range of intake
177
temperatures investigated. The standard RON and MON tests
are conducted at intake temperatures of 52°C and 149°C,
respectively [13]. The results shown in Figure 12 utilized
intake temperatures between those used in RON and MON
testing. As expected, the trend line shown in Figure 12
intersects the vertical axis (i.e., neat gasoline) at an effective
PRF # between the RON and MON of the gasoline, at
approximately PRF 92. This observation is important because
it provides confidence for the current experimental
investigation. From this point onward, whenever the
gasoline/EHN data is presented, it will be a combination of
the data from both intake temperatures.
Figure 13 shows the NOx emissions results for the data
points in Figure 12. For reference, the fuel-bound NO2 and
one-third of the fuel-bound NO2 are also shown on the plot.
The fuel-bound NO2 was calculated assuming that one NO2
molecule is removed from each EHN molecule in the fuel
mixture. As can be seen in the Figure, the engine-out NOx
emissions track fairly well with one-third of the total fuel-
bound NO2. This is consistent with the findings of Ickes et al.
[15] under diesel low temperature combustion operation with
diesel fuel/EHN mixtures.
Figure 13. Indicated specific NOx emissions as a
function of the EHN percentage in gasoline during lean
HCCI combustion.
Ethanol/EHN Mixtures
Figure 14 shows the effective PRF # for ethanol/EHN
mixtures under lean, HCCI combustion operating conditions.
Just as with gasoline, the effective PRF # is not sensitive
to the mixture equivalence ratio. However, contrary to
gasoline, the effective PRF # is very sensitive to the intake
temperature. This is consistent with the fuel sensitivity (i.e.,
RON minus MON) of ethanol as shown in the fuel property
table, Table 3. As mentioned previously, it is expected that
the alcohol fuels would have higher fuel sensitivity than
gasoline because they are a different class of hydrocarbon
compared to the reference fuels and gasoline.
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016
178 Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)
Figure 14. Effective PRF # derived from reference
combustion phasing maps for ethanol/EHN mixtures
In Figure 14 a polynomial trend line was constructed for
the ∼90°C data (i.e., Tin=103°C as shown in Figure 10). This
same trend line was applied to the ∼60°C data with a simple
vertical shift of 6 PRF. Data with small amounts of cetane
improver at the colder intake temperature was not possible to
acquire, thus this polynomial shift was created to illustrate the
differences in the effective PRF # for the neat base fuels at
the different intake temperatures. Again, providing
confidence in the experimental results, these trend lines
intersect the vertical axis in-between the RON and MON of
neat ethanol.
Figure 15 shows the NOx emissions results for
ethanol/EHN blends. The results are very consistent with the
gasoline/EHN blends, in which the engine-out NOx
emissions remain below the fuel-bound NO2 from the EHN,
but instead track reasonably well with one-third of the fuel-
bound NO2. However, there is a significant spread in the
NOx emissions results at a given EHN amount.
Figure 15. Indicated specific NOx Emissions as a
function of the EHN percentage in ethanol during lean
HCCI combustion.
Methanol/EHN Mixtures
Figure 16 shows the effective PRF # for methanol/EHN
blends. Trend wise, the results are very consistent with those
observed with ethanol/EHN mixtures. Again, a polynomial fit
was created for the data collected at the ∼90°C (i.e.,
Tin=113°C) intake condition and then applied to ∼60°C (i.e.,
Tin=82°C) data because data at low EHN percentages was
unattainable at the colder intake temperature. The sensitivity
of the effective PRF # to intake temperature is significant,
just as it was with ethanol.
Figure 16. Effective PRF # derived from reference
combustion phasing maps for methanol/EHN mixtures
Figure 17 shows the NOx emissions for methanol/EHN
blends under lean HCCI operation. Consistent with the other
base fuels, the NOx emissions are less than the fuel-bound
NO2 from the EHN additive. As mentioned previously, there
is a significant spread in the NOx emissions at a given EHN
percentage. By looking at the NOx plots for each base fuel
(i.e., Figures 13, 15, and 17) it can be seen that there is a
unique trend in NOx emissions for each combination of
equivalence ratio and intake temperature, in which the higher
equivalence ratio and higher intake temperature produce the
highest NOx emissions and the lower equivalence ratio and
lower intake temperature produce the lowest NOx emissions.
There exists a similar trend in the combustion phasing. The
cases with higher equivalence ratio and higher intake
temperature have advanced combustion phasing, while the
lower equivalence ratio and lower intake temperature cases
have retarded combustion phasing.
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)
Figure 17. Indicated specific NOx emissions as a
function of the EHN percentage in methanol during lean
HCCI combustion.
Figure 17 points out three cases, labeled 1, 2, and 3, that
have drastically different NOx emissions, but the same EHN
percentage in methanol of 6.9% by mass. Figure 18 shows the
AHRR for these three cases. As can be seen, case #3 has the
most advanced combustion phasing and thus the highest NOx
emissions. Conversely, case #1 has the lowest NOx emissions
and is phased later. It is well known that after hot ignition has
occurred, thermal NO formation is slow compared to
combustion chemistry [16]. Thus, thermal NO formation is a
strong function of the residence time at high temperature. In a
reciprocating engine this translates to thermal NO formation
being a strong function of the combustion phasing. Based on
the results seen here, it appears that the chemical mechanism
that governs the formation of NOx from the EHN bound
nitrate group is also very dependent on residence time. In
Figure 7 it was shown that the NOx emissions when
operating on the primary reference fuels were nearly zero.
Thus, the NOx emissions observed in Figures 13, 15, and 17
are entirely due to the fuel-bound nitrogen in the EHN
molecule with no appreciable contribution from thermal NO.
Figure 18. Apparent Heat Release Rate (AHRR) for the
operating points labeled in Figure 17. All have 6.9% by
mass EHN in methanol.
179
In an effort to generalize the NOx emissions trends
observed in this study, Figure 19 shows the engine-out NOx
emissions as a function of the mass of EHN inducted into the
cylinder per cycle. As can be seen, the NOx emissions are
fairly independent of the base fuel and the spread that is
observed at a given mass of EHN is primarily due to
combustion phasing differences. However, even with the
large spread, the NOx emissions do not approach the
maximum that could be produced due to the induction of a
given mass of EHN (i.e., the fuel-bound NO2).
Figure 19. Engine-out NOx emissions as a function of
the total mass of EHN per cycle for all the base fuels
Figure 20 shows engine-out NOx emissions as a function
of the mass of EHN per cycle for all the base fuels, but only
for cases that had a combustion phasing after top dead center
(i.e., CA50 > 0° ATDC). As can be seen, the spread in NOx
emissions reduced compared to Figure 19, with all of the
cases at or below the one-third fuel-bound NO2 line. From
these results it can be concluded that approximately 0.3
mg/cyc of EHN or less is required to yield NOx emissions
less than 0.3 g/kW-hr, which was an arbitrarily chosen
threshold.
Figure 21 shows the effective PRF # for gasoline, ethanol,
and methanol blended with EHN as the cetane improver at
the ∼90°C intake temperature condition. As discussed
previously, because this intake temperature is between that of
the standard RON and MON tests, the neat base fuels (i.e.,
0% EHN) yield an effective PRF # between their respective
RON and MON. In addition to that, ethanol and methanol
display the same effective PRF # in their neat form, which is
∼PRF 100. As shown in the fuel property table, this is
expected because ethanol and methanol have very similar
RONs and MONs. However, as EHN is added to the
alcohols, methanol's reactivity is enhanced at a higher rate
than that of ethanol. In general, the rate at which EHN
increases the reactivity of gasoline and methanol is similar,
and ethanol's response is flatter. The fact that the two alcohol
fuels have essentially the same RON and MON, but have
different response curves to EHN addition is evidence that
the reactivity enhancement stems from a chemical effect,
rather than from a temperature increase due to low
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016
180 Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)
temperature heat release. If the latter were the dominant
factor, it is expected that the reactivity enhancement from the
cetane improver would be relatively independent of the base
fuel, which is not the case.
Figure 20. Engine-out NOx emissions as a function of
the total mass of EHN per cycle for all the base fuels and
cases which had a combustion phasing after top dead
center.
Figure 21. Summary of the effective PRF # for gasoline,
ethanol, and methanol blends with EHN at the ∼90°C
intake temperature
Figure 22 shows the apparent heat release rate (AHRR)
for some selected operating conditions at the ∼90°C intake
temperature and an equivalence ratio of 0.26. Reference cases
of PRF 64 and PRF 74 are shown with the dashed lines. The
three base fuels are plotted with an EHN percentage that was
required to increase their respective reactivities to ∼PRF 70.
The combustion duration and peak heat release rate for the
reference cases, the gasoline base fuel, and the ethanol base
fuel are all very similar. (Note that the gasoline and ethanol
cases are directly on top of each other). However, when
methanol is used as the base fuel the combustion is much
more rapid. The cause of these results is not entirely
understood and currently under investigation, but it is clear
that methanol's response to reactivity enhancers (i.e., cetane
improvers) is unique compared to ethanol and gasoline.
Figure 22. Selected HCCI operating conditions for the
base fuels mixed with EHN and two primary reference
conditions at the ∼90°C intake temperature and an
equivalence ratio of 0.26
Individual Base Fuels & DTBP Compared
to EHN
In addition to investigating the effects of EHN on the
different base fuels during HCCI combustion, a second
commercially available cetane improver was studied, di-tert-
butyl peroxide (DTBP). For the sake of brevity, the different
intake temperatures are not shown in this section. Instead, a
comparison between EHN and DTBP will be made
immediately. However, the same trends were observed with
DTBP as the intake temperature changed: the gasoline
showed virtually no sensitivity and the alcohol's effective
PRF # was very sensitive to the intake temperature.
Figure 23 shows the effective PRF # as a function of the
mass % of cetane improver added to gasoline. As expected,
the two data sets converge in the region of low additive
percentage, considering that they should yield the same y-
intercept. However, as the cetane improvers are progressively
added to the gasoline, the effective PRF # is reduced much
more rapidly with EHN compared to DTBP. This result is
consistent with the literature on cetane improvers in diesel
fuel under conventional diesel combustion conditions, as
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 24 shows a comparison between EHN and DTBP
in which ethanol is used as the base fuel. The results are
trend-wise the same as gasoline, in which EHN serves as a
better reactivity enhancer than DTBP and, as expected, in the
low percent additive region the two data sets again converge.
Figure 25 shows the results with methanol as the base
fuel. As can be seen, methanol's response to the different
cetane improvers is a bit different than ethanol. With ethanol,
the response curves for EHN and DTBP are relatively parallel
and converge slowly on one another in the low percent
additive region. When methanol is used as the base fuel, the
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)
response curves for EHN and DTBP have vastly different
slopes, and therefore are converging very rapidly.
Figure 23. Effective PRF # of gasoline blended with
EHN and DTBP during HCCI combustion
Figure 24. Effective PRF # of ethanol blended with EHN
and DTBP during HCCI combustion
Figure 25. Effective PRF # of methanol blended with
EHN and DTBP during HCCI combustion
Figure 26 shows a summary of all three base fuels when
mixed with DTBP. The results are very consistent with the
previous findings with EHN, in which methanol's reactivity is
181
enhanced at a faster rate compared to ethanol. Previous
research has demonstrated that both ethanol and methanol act
as inhibitors of low temperature combustion chemistry [17,
18]. The results shown in Figure 21 and Figure 26 suggest
that ethanol is a stronger inhibitor, resulting in less reactivity
enhancement from the cetane improvers studied here. The
chemical reasons for this are not understood and currently
under investigation using detailed chemical kinetics
modeling.
Figure 26. Summary of the effective PRF # for gasoline,
ethanol, and methanol blends with DTBP at the ∼90°C
intake temperature
Lastly, Figure 27 shows the engine-out NOx emissions for
all the data collected with the DTBP additive. As can be seen,
the NOx emissions are near zero and completely independent
of the base fuel. These results are in agreement with the
primary reference fuel data shown in Figure 7, which further
supports the conclusion that all the NOx emissions observed
when fueling with EHN mixtures at these conditions stem
from the fuel-bound nitrogen on the EHN molecule.
Figure 27. Indicated specific NOx emissions as a
function of the DTBP percentage in all three base fuels
during lean HCCI combustion
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016
182 Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)
Alcohol/Gasoline Blends Mixed with
Cetane Improvers
Figure 28. Effective PRF# for gasoline/ethanol blends
mixed with EHN at an intake temperature of ∼90°C.
Figure 29. Effective PRF# for gasoline/alcohol blends
mixed with DTBP at an intake temperature of ∼90°C.
Before discussing the implications of this research on dual
fuel RCCI combustion, a brief comparison of gasoline/
alcohol blends will be made with the neat base fuels. Figure
28 shows the effective PRF # for gasoline/ethanol blends
mixed with EHN. As discussed previously and shown in
Figure 10, the intake temperature was adjusted for each base
fuel mixture to yield a constant bulk gas temperature in the
cylinder at IVC. The base fuel blends shown in Figure 28
were splash blended by volume (i.e., E10 = 90%
gasoline/10% ethanol by volume). As can be seen, the
addition of ethanol to gasoline has a very nonlinear impact on
the effective PRF #. The gasoline/ethanol blends remain near
the neat ethanol response curve for base fuel mixtures that
contain more than 50% ethanol. Figure 29 illustrates the same
effect for blends of both gasoline/ethanol and gasoline/
methanol mixed with DTBP. Again, the reasons for these
observations are not well understood and will be the topic of
future investigations. However, it is clear that utilizing a base
fuel that is by majority an alcohol mixed with gasoline does
not allow for less cetane improver to be used to achieve a
given reactivity level.
IMPLICATIONS OF ALCOHOLS
MIXED WITH CETANE IMPROVERS
FOR RCCI COMBUSTION
A main goal of the present study was to characterize the
potential of low reactivity fuels to serve as high reactivity
fuels for RCCI combustion when mixed with cetane
improvers. The characterization presented above suggests
that:
1. To achieve a given level of reactivity (i.e., PRF #) a
larger amount of cetane improver is required for alcohol fuels
compared to conventional gasoline.
2. However, methanol's response to the cetane improvers
is much more rapid than ethanol's, thus requiring less additive
to achieve a given reactivity level.
3. It was observed that blending gasoline in with the
alcohols does not allow for less cetane improver to be used to
achieve a given reactivity level, at least for alcohol-in-
gasoline percentages of greater than 50%.
Based on these observations, it was chosen to investigate
methanol as the single base fuel for RCCI combustion (i.e.,
port injected neat methanol and direct injected methanol
blended with cetane improvers). Previous research on this
concept utilized E10 as the single base fuel and direct
injected E10 mixed with 3% EHN by volume (i.e., ∼ 4% by
mass) [8]. Figure 30 illustrates that the results of the current
study predict that this mixture of E10/EHN would have a
reactivity level similar to ∼PRF 73. For the current study
with RCCI combustion, a similar level of reactivity was
targeted. Two different methanol fuel mixtures were created,
methanol mixed with 6% EHN by volume (7.2% by mass)
and methanol mixed with 12% DTBP by volume (12% by
mass). As shown in Figure 30, it is predicted that these fuel
blends will have reactivities near PRF 70.
As discussed in the introduction, one of the major
challenges with fully premixed HCCI combustion is that
there is no direct means to control the timing of combustion
on a cycle-to-cycle basis. Considering RCCI combustion
utilizes a direct injected fuel which serves as the ignition
source, the combustion process can be controlled cycle-to-
cycle. As a preliminary investigation of RCCI combustion
with methanol and cetane improvers, the effect of the direct
injection timing and direct injection quantity were studied as
these parameters provide the ability to control the combustion
process. All of the data presented in this section used the
engine hardware presented in Table 1 and the direct injected
fuel pressure was set at 500 bar.
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013) 183

cooling experienced with the direct injected methanol plays a

dominant role.
Figure 34 shows the engine-out NOx emissions as a
function of the direct injection timing for all three fuel
compositions. For diesel fuel, the more advanced injection
timings result in near zero NOx emissions. However, as the
injection timing is retarded the NOx emissions begin to
increase due to the fact that the peak equivalence ratio in the
chamber at the start of combustion is increasing, resulting in
local temperatures above the threshold for thermal NO
production. When utilizing the methanol/EHN as the high
reactivity fuel, the NOx emissions are higher, but do decrease
as the direct injection timing is advanced, which is consistent
Figure 30. Effective PRF # derived from lean HCCI with the findings of Kaddatz et al. [8]. The global amount of
experiments for E10/EHN, Methanol/EHN, and EHN in the combustion chamber for these operating
Methanol/DTBP. conditions is 0.64 mg/cyc, as noted in Figure 34. When
operating with methanol/DTBP as the high reactivity fuel, the
NOx emissions are near zero for all three direct injection
Effect of High Reactivity Fuel's Direct timings.
Injection Timing
First, the effect of the direct injection timing was
investigated and comparisons are made to gasoline/diesel
operation. Figure 31 shows the AHRR results of a single
direct injection timing sweep for RCCI operation on gasoline
and diesel fuel [19]. Here, the intake temperature and intake
pressure were set at 45°C and 1.5 bar, respectively. As can be
seen, a significant amount of combustion phasing control can
be achieved through the direct injection timing of the high
reactivity diesel fuel. The −35° ATDC injection timing yields
the most advanced start of combustion and the longest
combustion duration. This is due to the fact that with retarded
injection timings, the two fuels have a minimum amount of
time for premixing (i.e., large gradient in fuel reactivity in the Figure 31. Single direct injection timing sweep for RCCI
chamber) resulting in a mild heat release rate [20]. This is a operation on gasoline and diesel fuel. The experimental
valuable characteristic for partially premixed combustion data is taken from [19].
concepts (i.e., the ability to control the heat release shape
through the fuel injection timing).
Unfortunately, this is not the case when operating with
port injected neat methanol and direct injected methanol
mixed with cetane improvers. The two operating conditions
shown in this section which utilized direct injected methanol
mixed with cetane improvers, had intake temperature and
intake pressure were of 115°C and 1.5 bar, respectively.
Figures 32 and 33 show the results of the same direct
injection timing sweep in which the direct injected fuel was
methanol mixed with 6% EHN and methanol mixed with
12% DTBP, respectively.
As can be seen in Figures 32 and 33, the start of
combustion is virtually unchanged as the direct injection
timing is changed by 20° CA. However, the combustion
Figure 32. Single direct injection timing sweep for RCCI
duration is elongated as the methanol/cetane improver
operation on methanol and methanol mixed with 6%
mixture's direct injection timing is advanced. This is the
EHN
opposite trend to that with gasoline/diesel operation. The
reason for this combustion behavior is not completely
understood, but it is thought that the large amount of charge
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016

184 Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)

previous direct injection timing sweep, the heat release shape

remains unchanged as the ratio of the two fuels is varied.

Figure 33. Single direct injection timing sweep for RCCI

operation on methanol and methanol mixed with 12%
DTBP Figure 35. AHRR results over a sweep of the ratio of
high to low reactivity fuel using neat methanol and diesel
fuel

However, when operating with neat methanol as the low

reactivity fuel and methanol mixed with cetane improver as
the high reactivity fuel, very little control over the
combustion process was observed. Figure 36 and Figure 37
show the results over a fuels ratio sweep when operating with
port injected neat methanol and direct injected methanol
mixed with cetane improvers. As can be seen in the figures,
there is very little change in the combustion phasing as the
ratio of the two fuels is varied widely, from 70% port fueling
to 90% port fueling. However, just as with the diesel fuel, the
heat release shape remains unchanged as the ratio of the two
fuels is varied.
Figure 34. Engine-out NOx emissions as a function of
the direct injected timing for three high reactivity fuel
compositions

Effect of the Ratio of High to Low

Reactivity Fuel Amounts
In addition to the direct injection timing of the high
reactivity fuel, the ratio of the high to low reactivity fuel
amount is a potential method to control the RCCI combustion
process. For all the cases shown in this section, the intake
temperature and intake pressure were set at 115°C and 1.5
bar, respectively. In addition, all the cases used a single direct
injection timing of −40° ATDC. Figure 35 shows the AHRR
results over a sweep of the percentage of the total fuel that is
Figure 36. AHRR results over a sweep of the ratio of
port injected low reactivity fuel. Here, the low reactivity fuel
high to low reactivity fuel using neat methanol and
is neat methanol and the high reactivity fuel is diesel fuel. As
methanol mixed with 6% EHN
can be seen, as the ratio of high to low reactivity fuel is
varied by a small amount, the combustion phasing can be
controlled to a relatively large extent. Contrary to the
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013) 185

Figure 37. AHRR results over a sweep of the ratio of Figure 38. Engine-out NOx emissions as a function of
high to low reactivity fuel using neat methanol and the port fueling percentage for three different high
methanol mixed with 12% DTBP reactivity fuel compositions

The lack of combustion phasing control is also thought to Table 4. Engine performance and emissions results for
be a consequence of the large amount of charge cooling that the different high reactivity fuel compositions
is expected with direct injected methanol. Essentially,
wherever the high reactivity methanol/cetane improver
mixture targets in the combustion chamber will be cooled
significantly, counteracting the increase in reactivity from the
EHN and DTBP. Thus, the net effect is nearly no change in
the combustion phasing as the global amount of cetane
improver is increased or decreased.
Figure 38 shows the engine-out NOx emissions as a
function of the port fueling percentage for the different high
reactivity fuel compositions. When diesel fuel is used as the
high reactivity fuel, the NOx emissions are low if more than
∼92% of the total fuel is port injected neat methanol. As was
the case with the direct injection timing sweep, the NOx
emissions when operating with methanol/DTBP are very low
regardless of the port fueling percentage. When
methanol/EHN was used as the high reactivity fuel, the NOx
emissions were again higher. However, as concluded The major issue with the methanol/cetane improver
previously, if 0.3 mg or less of EHN were injected per cycle, mixtures remains, which is the inability to control the
the NOx emissions stemming from the fuel-bound nitrate combustion phasing to a large extent. This disadvantage is
group remain below 0.3 g/kW-hr. summarized in Figure 39. The error bars shown in the figure
Table 4 shows the engine performance and emissions are calculated from the standard deviation of the CA50 at
results for select cases which utilized the three different high each operating point over a 300 cycles. As can be seen, the
reactivity fuel compositions studied here. As can be seen methanol/cetane improver mixtures are unable to vary
from the table, the methanol/cetane improver mixtures combustion phasing despite large changes in the port fueling
performed just as well as diesel fuel. However, the peak percentage. However, when diesel fuel is utilized as the high
pressure rise rates produced by the methanol/cetane improver reactivity fuel, a large amount of combustion phasing control
mixtures were higher, suggesting that the in-cylinder is experienced.
gradients in fuel reactivity are not as large as those produced
when diesel fuel is used.
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016
186 Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013)
Figure 39. Combustion phasing (CA50) as a function of
port fueling percentage for the three different high
reactivity fuel compositions investigated
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The main goal of the present study was to characterize the
potential of low reactivity fuels, such as gasoline, ethanol,
methanol, and blends of the alcohols and gasoline to serve as
high and low reactivity fuels for RCCI combustion when
mixed with cetane improvers. The characterization was
carried out using fully premixed HCCI combustion, the
results of which were as follows:
1. To achieve a given level of fuel reactivity (i.e., PRF #)
a larger amount of cetane improver is required for alcohol
fuels compared to conventional gasoline.
2. Methanol's response to the cetane improvers is much
more rapid than ethanol's, thus requiring less additive to
achieve a given reactivity level. This observation supports the
conclusion that the cetane improvers promote ignition
through a chemical effect rather than a slight temperature
increase due to low temperature heat release.
3. It was found that 2-ethylhexyl nitrate is more effective
at increasing the fuel reactivity (i.e., suppressing the octane
number) compared to di-tert-butyl peroxide. This is
consistent with previous literature on these two cetane
improvers' impact on diesel fuel reactivity under conventional
diesel combustion conditions.
4. Engine-out NOx emissions that stem from the nitrate
group bound to the EHN molecule was characterized under
lean, low temperature combustion conditions. It was found
that only a fraction of the fuel-bound nitrate group (∼1/3)
manifests itself as engine-out NOx emissions. However, it
was also observed that the results depend heavily on the
combustion phasing (i.e., residence time).
5. It was observed that blending gasoline with the
alcohols does not allow less cetane improver to achieve a
given reactivity level, at least for alcohol-in-gasoline
percentages of greater than 50%.
Based on these observations, methanol was investigated
as the single base fuel for RCCI combustion (i.e., port
injected neat methanol and direct injected methanol blended
with cetane improvers). It was discovered that RCCI
combustion using methanol mixed with cetane improvers
performed comparably to diesel fuel. However, the
combustion phasing was insensitive to the direct injection
parameters (i.e., injection timing and amount). This is a major
disadvantage which is thought to stem from the fact that
direct injection of methanol causes a large amount of charge
cooling in the combustion chamber, which counteracts the
enhanced reactivity of the cetane improvers. Investigations of
this hypothesis using detailed CFD modeling are currently
underway.
REFERENCES
1. Najt, P. and Foster, D., “Compression-Ignited Homogeneous Charge
Combustion,” SAE Technical Paper 830264, 1983, doi:
10.4271/830264.
2. Fitzgerald, R. and Steeper, R., “Thermal and Chemical Effects of NVO
Fuel Injection on HCCI Combustion,” SAE Int. J. Engines 3(1):46-64,
2010, doi: 10.4271/2010-01-0164.
3. Bessonette, P., Schleyer, C., Duffy, K., Hardy, W. et al., “Effects of Fuel
Property Changes on Heavy-Duty HCCI Combustion,” SAE Technical
Paper 2007-01-0191, 2007, doi: 10.4271/2007-01-0191.
4. Kokjohn, S., Hanson, R., Splitter, D., and Reitz, R., “Experiments and
Modeling of Dual-Fuel HCCI and PCCI Combustion Using In-Cylinder
Fuel Blending,” SAE Int. J. Engines 2(2):24-39, 2010, doi:
10.4271/2009-01-2647.
5. Kokjohn, S. L., “Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI)
Combustion,” PhD Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA,
2012.
6. Kokjohn, S. L., Hanson, R. M., Splitter, D. A., and Reitz, R. D., “Fuel
reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI): a pathway to
controlled high-efficiency clean combustion,” International Journal of
Engine Research, 2011, 12, doi: 10.1177/1468087411401548.
7. Splitter, D., Reitz, R., and Hanson, R., “High Efficiency, Low Emissions
RCCI Combustion by Use of a Fuel Additive,” SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr.
3(2):742-756, 2010, doi: 10.4271/2010-01-2167.
8. Kaddatz, J., Andrie, M., Reitz, R., and Kokjohn, S., “Light-Duty
Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition Combustion Using a Cetane
Improver,” SAE Technical Paper 2012-01-1110, 2012, doi:
10.4271/2012-01-1110.
9. Mack, J., Dibble, R., Buchholz, B., and Flowers, D., “The Effect of the
Di-Tertiary Butyl Peroxide (DTBP) Additive on HCCI Combustion of
Fuel Blends of Ethanol and Diethyl Ether,” SAE Technical Paper
2005-01-2135, 2005, doi: 10.4271/2005-01-2135.
10. Eng, J., Leppard, W., and Sloane, T., “The Effect of Di-Tertiary Butyl
Peroxide (DTBP) Addition to Gasoline on HCCI Combustion,” SAE
Technical Paper 2003-01-3170, 2003, doi: 10.4271/2003-01-3170.
11. Schwab, S., Guinther, G., Henly, T., and Miller, K., “The Effects of 2-
Ethylhexyl Nitrate and Di-Tertiary-Butyl Peroxide on the Exhaust
Emissions from a Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine,” SAE Technical Paper
1999-01-1478, 1999, doi: 10.4271/1999-01-1478.
12. Gamma Technologies, “GT Suite v7.0,” 2009.
13. Heywood, J. B., “Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals,” McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1988.
14. Dec, J., Yang, Y., and Dronniou, N., “Boosted HCCI - Controlling
Pressure-Rise Rates for Performance Improvements using Partial Fuel
Stratification with Conventional Gasoline,” SAE Int. J. Engines 4(1):
1169-1189, 2011, doi: 10.4271/2011-01-0897.
15. Ickes, A. M., Bohac, S. V., and Assanis, D. N., “Effect of 2-Ethylhexyl
Nitrate Cetane Improver on NOx Emissions from Premixed Low-
Temperature Diesel Combustion,” Energy Fuels, 2009, 23, doi:
10.1021/ef900408e.
16. Turns, S. R., “An Introduction to Combustion,” McGraw-Hill, 1996.
17. Ogawa, H., Miyamoto, N., Kaneko, N., and Ando, H., “Combustion
control and operating range expansion in an homogeneous charge
compression ignition engine with direct in-cylinder injection of reaction
inhibitors,” International Journal of Engine Research, 2005, 6, doi:
10.1243/146808705X30440.
18. Shibata, G. and Ogawa, H., “HCCI Combustion Control by DME-
Ethanol Binary Fuel and EGR,” SAE Technical Paper 2012-01-1577,
2012, doi: 10.4271/2012-01-1577.
19. Walker, N. R., Dempsey, A. B., Andrie, M. J., and Reitz, R. D.,
“Experimental Study of Low-Pressure Fueling Under RCCI Engine
 Downloaded from SAE International by ETH Bibliothek Zurich, Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Dempsey et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 6, Issue 1(April 2013) 187

Operation,” 24th International Conference on Liquid Atomization and

Spray Systems, San Antonio, Texas, 2012. PPC - Partially Premixed Combustion
20. Kokjohn, S., Reitz, R., Splitter, D., and Musculus, M., “Investigation of PPRR - Peak Pressure Rise Rate
Fuel Reactivity Stratification for Controlling PCI Heat-Release Rates
Using High-Speed Chemiluminescence Imaging and Fuel Tracer PRF - Primary Reference Fuel
Fluorescence,” SAE Int. J. Engines 5(2):248-269, 2012, doi:
10.4271/2012-01-0375. RCCI - Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition
CONTACT INFORMATION RON - Research Octane Number
Tin - Intake Temperature
Adam Dempsey
Engine Research Center
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI 53706-1609 USA
Phone: 608-265-8608
abdempsey@wisc.edu

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of this
work by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and
the Princeton Combustion Energy Frontier Research Center
(CEFRC). Additionally, the authors would like to thank the
United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC for donating the
ethanol fuel used in this study.

DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
Φ - Equivalence Ratio
AHRR - Apparent Heat Release Rate
ATDC - After Top Dead Center
CA - Crank Angle
CA50 - Crank Angle of 50% Fuel Burned
CFD - Computational Fluid Dynamics
COV - Coefficient of Variation
DEF - Diesel Exhaust Fluid
DI - Direct Injection
DTBP - Di-Tert Butyl Peroxide
E10 - 90% Gasoline/10% Ethanol by Volume
E50 - 50% Gasoline/50% Ethanol by Volume
E85 - 15% Gasoline/85% Ethanol by Volume
EHN - 2-EthylHexyl Nitrate
HCCI - Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition
IMEP - Indicated Mean Effective Pressure
IVC - Intake Valve Closure
M50 - 50% Gasoline/50% Methanol by Volume
MON - Motored Octane Number
NO - Nitrogen Oxide
NO2 - Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx - Nitric Oxide Emissions
PFI - Port Fuel Injection