You are on page 1of 14

Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Performance, emission and combustion characteristic of a multicylinder DI


diesel engine running on diesel–ethanol–biodiesel blends of high ethanol content
Dattatray Bapu Hulwan ⇑, Satishchandra V. Joshi
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vishwakarma Institute of Technology, Pune 411037, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Feasibility of using high percentage of ethanol in diesel–ethanol blends, with biodiesel as a co-solvent
Received 13 July 2010 and properties enhancer has been investigated. The blends tested are D70/E20/B10 (blend A), D50/E30/
Received in revised form 4 July 2011 B20 (blend B) D50/E40/B10 (blend C), and Diesel (D100). The blends are prepared to get maximum per-
Accepted 5 July 2011
centage of oxygen content but keeping important properties such as density, viscosity and Cetane index
Available online 28 July 2011
within acceptable limits. Experiments are conducted on a multicylinder, DI diesel engine, whose original
injection timing was 13° CA BTDC. The engine did not run on blends B and C at this injection timing and it
Keywords:
was required to advance timing to 18° and 21° CA BTDC to enable the use of blends B and C respectively.
Diesel–ethanol–biodiesel blends
DI diesel engine
However advancing injection timing almost doubled the NO emissions and increased peak firing pres-
Injection timing sure. The P–h and net heat release diagrams shows that the combustion process of these blends delayed
Emissions at low loads but approaches to the diesel fuel at high loads. The comparison of blend results with baseline
diesel showed that brake specific fuel consumption increased considerably, thermal efficiency improved
slightly, smoke opacity reduced remarkably at high loads. NO variation depends on operating conditions
while CO emissions drastically increased at low loads. Blend B which replaced 50% diesel and having oxy-
gen content up to 12.21% by weight has given satisfactory performance for steady state running mode up
to 1600 RPM however, it does not showed any benefit on peak smoke emission during free acceleration
test.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction reduction in particulate emissions can be obtained through the


addition of biodiesel to diesel fuel. B20 (a mixture of 20% biodiesel
Excessive use of the fossil fuels has led to global environmental and 80% petroleum diesel) has become the most popular biodiesel
degradation and health hazards. The increasing concern of envi- fuel blend used [2–4].
ronmental protection and more stringent regulation on exhaust Ethanol can be produced from agricultural products such as
emissions, reduction in engine emissions becomes a major task sugarcane, corn, sugar beet, molasses, cassava root, and barley by
in engine development. In addition to this lots of efforts are needed alcoholic fermentation process. Ethanol is a low cost oxygenate
to reduce dependence on the petroleum fuels as it is obtained from with high oxygen content of 34% by weight. The use of ethanol
limited reserves. These concerns led research on alternative in diesel fuel can yield significant reduction of particulate matter
renewable fuels in the last decade. Among the proposed alternative (PM) emissions for motor vehicles [5–8]. Ethanol is an agricultural
fuels biodiesel and ethanol (blends with diesel) have received product and its use in diesel engine can help to boost the rural
much attention in recent years for diesel engines. Biofuels and die- economy. Increased fraction of ethanol in diesel–ethanol blend
sel fuel blends can be used on existing engines to achieve both the has more potential to reduce the particulate matter as a result of
environmental and energy benefits. increased oxygen content in the blend. The cold flow properties
Biodiesel and ethanol can be produced from feedstock’s that are could also improved with the addition of ethanol.
generally considered to be renewable. The vegetable oil ester- However, there are many technical barriers to the direct use of
based biodiesel has long been used as fuel for diesel engines. Many ethanol in diesel fuel due to the properties of ethanol, including
studies about the use of biodiesel fuels in diesel engines have been low Cetane number, poor solubility in diesel fuel in cold weather
done and some of them have been reviewed [1]. Substantial and lower flash point. In fact, diesel engines cannot operate nor-
mally on diesel–ethanol blend without special additives [9,10].
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Vishwakarma Institute of Technology Pune,
Therefore numbers of additives are developed to ensure solubility
Mechanical Department, 666 Upper Indiranagar, Bibwewadi, Pune, Maharashtra
of diesel–ethanol blends. Performance of some of the additives is
411 037, India. Tel.: +91 9822667480. reviewed in [11]. There are many studies which have tested
E-mail address: dbhulwanvit@rediffmail.com (D.B. Hulwan). diesel–ethanol blends with special additives (emulsifiers) but all

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.07.008
D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055 5043

Nomenclature

ASTM American Standards for Testing Materials D100 100% diesel


BMEP brake mean effective pressure c ratio of specific heats
BTDC before top dead center h crank angle
BSFC brake specific fuel consumption EGR exhaust gas recirculation
BTE brake thermal efficiency HSU hartridge smoke units
CA crank angle HC hydro carbon
CO carbon monoxide HSDI high speed direct injection
CO2 carbon dioxide NO nitric oxides
CC cubic centimeter NOx oxides of nitrogen
DI direct injection RTD resistance temperature detector
D70/E20/B10 70% diesel, 20% ethanol, 10% biodiesel by volume RPM revolutions per minute
(blend A) SCR selective catalytic reduction
D50/E30/B20 50% diesel, 30% ethanol, 20% biodiesel by volume V cylinder volume
(blend B) P cylinder gas pressure
D50/E40/B10 50% diesel, 40% ethanol, 10% biodiesel by volume
(blend C)

have small quantity of ethanol in the blends because additives only use of blends B and C respectively. Experiments are conducted for
helps for solubility and could not improve properties of blend wide variety of operating conditions of engine to see effects of
[7,12–15]. The low flashpoint of ethanol–diesel blend is also a excess ethanol on performance and emissions. Cylinder pressure
technical barrier to the application of this fuel blend. Studies variation against crank angle is recorded to study the nature of
showed that a presence of emulsifiers has no effect on flashpoint combustion process inside the cylinder. The net heat release rate
[9]. analysis is also carried to know more details of combustion process
Biodiesel derived from different sources is reported to act as an of blends.
emulsifier for ethanol [16–19]. Adding biodiesel in diesel–ethanol
blend dramatically improves the solubility of ethanol in diesel fuel
over a wide range of temperature. The diesel–ethanol–biodiesel 2. Materials and methods
fuel blends are stable well below zero temperature and have equal
or superior fuel properties to regular diesel fuel [20]. The solubility 2.1. Experimental setup
of biodiesel fuel components in fossil diesel–methanol–rapeseed
oil methyl ester, fossil diesel–ethanol–rapeseed oil methyl ester Fig. 1 shows a schematic representation of diesel engine testing
and fossil diesel–ethanol–rapeseed oil ethyl ester systems has been facility used for studying engine performance, emission, and com-
characterized earlier [21]. The studies on diesel–ethanol–biodiesel bustion characteristics. The specifications of engine are listed in
blends have showed that, biodiesel could improve properties of Table 1. Engine was loaded by a hydraulic dynamometer of
ethanol–diesel blends and showed a promising way to formulate 60 kW capacities and load was measured with spring balance.
a new form of biofuel and diesel fuel blend. The spring balance is calibrated with a calibration arm and cali-
Particulate matter (smoke) reduction appeared to be related to brated weights. Engine lubricating oil temperature, coolant tem-
the amount of oxygen content in the fuel blends [22]. It is also peratures, and exhaust gas temperature were measured using
obvious that to have more percentage of oxygen in blend, ethanol resistance temperature detector (RTD) and K type thermocouples
percentage should be higher in the blend. Smoke emissions are during the experiments. A special cooling system of mixing water
substantial when engine works at high loads and acceleration type was designed and used to maintain constant engine temper-
mode and it was increased to 65 HSU during the free acceleration ature. The maximum coolant temperature was maintained at
test of a four cylinder turbocharged diesel engine [23]. High oxygen 90 °C for all the tests. Fuel consumption on mass basis was mea-
content in fuel can be more beneficial for smoke reduction during sured by a digital weighing machines and stop watch. A special fuel
such working modes. system was designed and used to run the engine on diesel and
A review of previous work as mentioned above shows that most blends. An optical speed sensor with a digital indicator was used
of the researchers have used diesel ethanol blends with a small for engine speed measurement. The result of power output and
percentage of ethanol. Aim of this work is to replace diesel with brake specific fuel consumption was corrected for the standard
maximum fraction of ethanol in diesel–ethanol blends with a sup- atmospheric conditions (STP) i.e., 298 K temperature, 100 kPa pres-
port of biodiesel. Ethanol is being main replacement of diesel fuel sure and 30% relative humidity as per ISO 3046 standards.
while biodiesel is added as a co solvent and properties improver. An exhaust gas analyzer (AVL 444) with diesel probe and rec-
The blends are prepared in order to have high oxygen content, as ommended filters was used to measure the concentrations of HC,
well as keeping the important properties within acceptable limits. CO, NO, CO2 and O2 in the exhaust emissions. It measures HC, CO
A commercial diesel fuel, analysis-grade unhydrous ethanol (99.7% and CO2 with spectrum analysis principle and NO and O2 by the
purity) and a biodiesel (methyl ester) derived from Jatropha seed electrochemical sensors. Smoke opacity during steady state and
oil used to make the diesel–ethanol–biodiesel blends. Experiments free acceleration mode was measured with a smoke meter (AVL
are conducted on a three cylinder, DI, naturally aspirated diesel en- 437).
gine at 1200, 1600, RPM for BMEP of 0.1–0.6 MPa and different Pressure versus crank angle history was measured by water
injection timings of 13°, 18° and 21° CA BTDC. Original injection cooled piezo-electric pressure transducer and crank angle encoder.
timing of the engine was 13° CA BTDC. However, engine did not The signal of cylinder pressure was acquired for every 1° CA and
run on blends B and C at this injection timing and it was required the acquisition process covered 120 completed cycles, the average
to advance injection timing to 18° and 21° CA BTDC to enable the value of these 120 cycles being used as pressure data for
5044 D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055

Fig. 1. Experimental set up block diagram.

Table 1 viscosity, calorific value, Cetane index, flash point, pour point were
Engine specification. measured experimentally, and carbon contents, oxygen contents,
Engine specification Details hydrogen contents, Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio of the fuel blends
Number of cylinders 03 were calculated theoretically. The fuel density was measured by
Bore  stroke 110 mm  116 mm weighing a known volume of fuel; the viscosity was measured by
Displacement 3300 CC using a dynamic viscometer, the measurement principle consisted
Compression ratio 18:1 of measuring the time needed for a known volume of fuel to drop
Power 27.9 kW (38 BHP) at 1500 RPM
from a Viscometer. The flash point was measured using a close-cup
Nozzle diameter 0.2 mm
Number of holes in nozzle 5 method of ABEL flash point equipment. Bomb calorimeter was used
Original injection timing 13° CA BTDC to find the calorific value of test fuels. Pour point is determined by
Fuel injection pressure 500 bar cooling the fuel in a glass tube of standard size. All properties were
measured with standard procedure given in the ASTM standards
respectively. The detailed variation in the properties of blends is
calculation of the combustion parameters. The pressure signal was listed in Table 2 and properties of diesel, ethanol, and biodiesel
fed into a charge amplifier then to a data acquisition card linked to are also provided for comparison.
the computer and crank angle signal was fed into a degree marker
shaper channel and output of which was fed into data acquisition 3. Results and discussions
card. The dynamic top dead center was determined by motoring of
engine. Data acquisition card collects data at the rate of 250 KS/s. Results are discussed with the perspective to add some new
Pressure versus crank angle data was stored in the computer and information of blended fuel investigation on engine performance,
used to calculate rate of heat release and analyse the combustion creative results of the blend combustion in the CI engine or more
characteristics. detailed emissions reduction benefits compared to the other re-
The net heat release rate, dQn/dh, is calculated using the formula searches for diesel–ethanol–biodiesel blends with high ethanol
given in Ref. [34], content.
dQn c dV 1 dp
¼ p þ V ð1Þ
dh c  1 dh c  1 dh 3.1. Combustion characteristics

Here c is the ratio of specific heats, Cp/Cv. An appropriate range for The cylinder pressure variation with respect to crank angle for
c for diesel heat release analysis is 1.3–1.35. The wall heat transfer blends, in comparison with diesel fuel at different engine operating
and blow by losses are not considered to find the heat released due conditions, is shown in Figs. 2 and 3. It shows that cylinder pres-
combustion of fuel inside cylinder. This helps to eliminate addi- sure is increased with increase of engine load as well as advance
tional approximation in the analysis of heat release. of injection timing and peak cylinder pressure occurs later in terms
of the crank angle for blends at low loads. The residual gas temper-
2.2. Fuel properties testing ature decreases as load decreases, which leads to lower charge
temperature at injection time in comparison to that of full/high
Diesel–ethanol–biodiesel blends were prepared on volume ba- load condition, and lengthens the ignition delay. In addition, lower
sis and objective was to replace diesel fuel in maximum quantity Cetane number of the blended fuel and higher latent heat of evap-
in order to increase fuel oxygen level to maximum, but keeping oration of ethanol, increases the ignition delay further at low loads.
the important properties within the acceptable limits. The Figs. 4 and 5 shows that the combustion process of the test fuels
biodiesel is added as a co solvent as well as a properties improver. is similar, consisting of a phase of premixed combustion following
The blending method consists of first adding ethanol in diesel fuel, by a phase of diffusion combustion. It also shows that the
mixing it properly and then adding biodiesel to form the solution premixed combustion is delayed, and the maximum rate of heat
of diesel ethanol blend. The basic properties such as density, release increases for blends. It is suggested that increase in total
D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055 5045

Table 2
Fuel properties.

Fuel property Diesel (D100) Ethanol (E100) Biodiesel (B100) D70/E20/B10 (blend A) D50/E30/B20 (blend B) D50/E40/B10 (blend C)
Chemical formula C12 H23 C2 H6 O C19 H36 O2 – – –
Density (kg/m3) at 15 °C 837.8 799.4 896.9 832.87 834.55 820.4
Viscosity (mm2/s) at 40 °C 2.649 1.10 4.643 2.380 2.401 2.018
Calorific value kJ/kg 44,893 28,180 38,085 39,930 38,965 36,338
Cetane index 54 8 – 50 50 41
Flash point (°C) 50 12 – 14.0 12.5 12
Pour point (°C) 0 – 0 3 9 12
Oxygen content (%by weight) 0 34.73 10.79 7.77 12.21 14.53
Carbon content (%by weight) 86.14 52.14 76.97 78.69 74.49 72.07
Hydrogen content (%by weight) 13.86 13.13 12.24 13.54 13.30 13.41
Stoichiometric A/F ratio 14.75 9.06 12.67 13.45 12.69 12.34

0.5 MPa BMEP, 1200 RPM, 13º BTDC


0.2 MPa BMEP, 1200 RPM, 13º BTDC 6
6
Diesel 5
5

Pressure (MPa)
D70/E20/B10
Pressure (MPa)

4
4
3
3

2
2 Diesel

1 D70/E20/B10
1

0 0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Angle (ºCA) Crank Angle (ºCA)

0.2 MPa BMEP, 1200 RPM, 18º BTDC 0.5 MPa BMEP, 1200 RPM, 18º BTDC
8 8

7 7 Diesel
Diesel D70/E20/B10
6 6
Pressure (MPa)

D70/E20/B10
Pressure (MPa)

D50/E30/B20
D50/E30/B20 5
5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Angle (ºCA) Crank Angle (ºCA)

0.2 MPa BMEP, 1200 RPM, 21º BTDC 0.5 MPa BMEP, 1200 RPM, 21º BTDC
8 8

7 Diesel 7
D70/E20/B10 Diesel
6 D50/E30/B20 6
Pressure (MPa)

Pressure (MPa)

D70/E20/B10
D50/E40/B10
5 5 D50/E30/B20
D50/E40/B10
4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Angle (ºCA) Crank Angle (ºCA)

Fig. 2. P–h diagram at 1200 RPM.


5046 D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055

0.2 MPa BMEP, 1600 RPM,13º BTDC 0.6 MPa BMEP,1600 RPM,13º BTDC
7 7
Diesel
6 6
D70/E20/B10
Diesel 5
Pressure (MPa)

Pressure (Mpa)
5
D70/E20/B10
4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Angle (ºCA) Crank Angle (ºCA)

0.2 MPa BMEP, 1600 RPM, 18º BTDC 0.6 MPa BMEP, 1600 RPM, 18º BTDC
7 7
Diesel Diesel
6 D70/E20/B10 6 D70/E20/B10
D50/E30/B20 D50/E30/B10
5 5
Pressure (MPa)
Pressure (MPa)

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Angle (ºCA) Crank Angle (ºCA)

0.2 MPa BMEP, 1600 RPM, 21º BTDC


7
0.6 MPa BMEP, 1600 RPM, 21º BTDC
7
Diesel
6
D70/E20/B10 6
5 D50/E30/B20
Pressure (MPa)

Pressure (MPa)

5
D50/E40/B10
4 4

3 3
Diesel
2 2 D70/E20/B10
D50/E30/B20
1 1
D50/E40/B10
0 0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Angle (ºCA) Crank Angle (º CA)

Fig. 3. P–h diagram at 1600 RPM.

ignition delay is responsible for this behavior. In this premixed and low surface tension of ethanol blended fuels. Although the
combustion stage, ethanol having lower density and viscosity, beginning of heat release is retarded for blends, the end of heat
leads to better fuel atomization and mixing to form a fuel air mix- release remains at almost the same crank angle as that for diesel.
ture burning rapidly and releasing more heat. As increasing the That indicates diffusive combustion would decrease for blends,
blending ratio of ethanol fuel, the blended fuels with the lowered which would be due to improved atomization, mixing and avail-
surface tension and density were well mixed with the air, because ability more oxygen (inbuilt in fuel blend). Similar results are
of the evaporation of ethanol droplets. This indicates that the noticed for the diesel blends with different oxygenates like meth-
macroscopic spray behavior and atomization performance are anol and dimethyl carbonate also [25,26]. The net heat release rate
improved [24]. The added ethanol fuel slightly affected spray tip curve showing negative at some crank angle as wall heat loss and
penetration and spray cone angle, whereas the droplet size of blow by loss is not considered in this analysis.
diesel–ethanol blended fuels decreased with an increase in the eth- Net heat release rate curve tends to shift from top dead center
anol blending ratio. The mean droplet size decreased as the ethanol (TDC) towards right for blends at low load (BMEP = 0.2 MPa), this
blending ratio increased because of the low kinematic viscosity tendency is increased with increase of ethanol fraction in blends.
D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055 5047

0.2 MPa BMEP, 1200 RPM, 13º BTDC 0.5 MPa BMEP, 1200 RPM, 13º BTDC
120 120
Diesel Diesel

Net heat release rate J/ºCA


100 100
Net heat release rate J/ºCA

D70/E20/B10 D70/E20/B10
80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Angle (ºCA) Crank Angle (ºCA)

0.2 MPa BMEP, 1200 RPM , 18º BTDC 0.5 MPa BMEP,1200 RPM, 18º BTDC
100 100
Diesel Diesel
Net heat release rate J/ºCA

Net heat release rate J/ºCA


80 D70/E20/B10 80 D70/E20/B10
D50/E30/B20 D50/E30/B20
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Angle (ºCA)
Crank Angle (ºCA)

0.2 MPa BMEP, 1200 RPM, 21º BTDC. 0.5 MPa BMEP, 1200 RPM, 21ºBTDC
100 100
Diesel Diesel
Net heat release rate J/ºCA

Net heat release rate J/ºCA

80 D70/E20/B10 80 D70/E20/B10
D50/E30/B20 D50/E30/B20
60 D50/E40/B10 60 D50/E40/B10

40 40

20 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Angle (ºCA) Crank Angle (ºCA)

Fig. 4. Net heat release rate at 1200 RPM.

Heat release rate curves maintain the same position from TDC at of 1200 RPM (shown in Fig. 4). On the other hand at low load of
high loads (BMEP = 0.5 and 0.6 MPa) and at the same time the peak 1600 RPM the considerably increased ignition delay for the blends
for blend is higher than that for diesel; ending at the same position shifted the entire combustion process in the expansion stroke. This
on its downward path, this is reasonable since the mass of pre- tendency of blend is increased as the percentage of ethanol in the
mixed burned fuel increases with load and the duration of diffusive blends increased. At high engine load (BMEP = 0.5 MPa and
combustion decreases even though the heat release start point is 0.6 MPa), with an increasing amount of fuel injected into the
retarded. The higher peak for the blend indicates more heat release engine, the gas temperature inside the cylinder is higher, which
than diesel meaning higher output thermal power. reduces the physical ignition delay period. From the Figs. 2–5 it
The variation of combustion characteristics with respect to can be seen that the start of combustion is delayed especially for
speed for the blend is also noticeable. Sufficient time available high ethanol content blend compared to the diesel fuel, however
for combustion resulted in a strong premixed burning phase and it has started much earlier compared to the lower loads. This
gives rise to the peak cylinder pressure near TDC at low engine load means that influence of lower Cetane number of blends on the
5048 D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055

0.2 MPa BMEP,1600 RPM, 13º BTDC. 0.6 MPa BMEP, 1600 RPM, 13º BTDC
100 100
Diesel
Diesel

Net heat release rate J/ºCA


80 D70/E20/B10
Net heat release rate J/ºCA

80 D70/E20/B10

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Angle (ºCA) Crank Angle (ºCA)

0.2 MPa BMEP,1600 RPM, 18 ºBTDC 0.6 MPa BMEP, 1600 RPM, 18 ºBTDC
100
100 Diesel
Diesel

Net heat release rate J/ºCA


80 D70/E20/B10
Net heat release rate J/ºCA

80 D70/E20/B10
D50/E30/B20
D50/E30/B20 60
60

40 40

20 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Angle (ºCA) Crank Angle (ºCA)

0.2 MPa BMEP,1600 RPM, 21ºBTDC 0.6 MPa BMEP,1600 RPM, 21º BTDC
100 100
Diesel Diesel
D70/E20/B10
Net heat release rate J/ºCA

D70/E20/B10
Net heat release rate J/ºCA

80 80
D50/E30/B20 D50/E30/B20
60 D50/E40/B10 60 D50/E40/B10

40 40

20 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Angle (ºCA) Crank Angle (ºCA)

Fig. 5. Net heat release rate at 1600 RPM.

ignition delay is reduced at high engine load. On the other hand, pared to diesel fuel at 13° injection timing. This is mainly because
addition of ethanol leads to decrease in viscosity of the blended of delayed combustion due to ethanol content and shifting of the
fuel which helps to form better air–fuel mixture and results in a peak cylinder pressure location to right of the TDC position. Peak
larger percentage of fuel burned in the premixed burning phase. cylinder pressure is decreased at low load for the blend but re-
Therefore, peak cylinder pressure occurs at nearly the same crank mains unchanged at higher loads of both speeds at 18° injection
angle for blends as well as diesel fuels at high engine loads of both timing. This indicates that the nature of combustion of blend is
speeds. very much similar to the diesel fuel, at medium and high load for
The variation of the peak cylinder pressure for blends at differ- this injection timing. Peak cylinder pressure is decreased for blends
ent injection timing and speeds for all loads is as shown in Fig. 6. compared to diesel fuel at both speeds at 21° injection timing;
Peak cylinder pressure is decreased for blend at both speeds com- however, the decrease is more significant at low loads of both
D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055 5049

Peak Cylinder Pressure, 13º CA BTDC of injection and point of sudden rise of heat release rate is noted as
8 start of combustion. Ignition delay period is decreased as load in-
Peak Cylinder Pressure (MPa)

Diesel 1200
D70/E20/B10 1200 creases for all blends at all injection timing and speeds as shown
7 Diesel 1600 in Fig. 7. This is mainly due to influence of cylinder gas tempera-
D70/E20/B10 1600 ture within the ignition delay period, as the gas temperature
increases with increase of engine load. The ignition delay is in-
6
creased with increase of ethanol mass fraction in blends. The blend
with highest ethanol content showed the increase about 40–50% at
5 1600 RPM and 21° injection timing. Low Cetane index, more latent
heat of vaporization, higher self ignition temperature of ethanol
4
blends is mainly responsible for the increase in the ignition delay.
The overall results of the combustion characteristics showed
the ignition delay is increased considerably, cylinder pressure
3 diagrams are slightly displaced at high load and considerably
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
BMEP (MPa)
Delay period, 13º CA BTDC
Peak Cylinder Pressure, 18º CA BTDC
8 40
Diesel 1200
Peak Cylinder Pressure (MPa)

D70/E20/B10 1200
35 Diesel 1600

Delay period (ºCA)


7 D70/E20/B10 1600
30

6 25

20
5
Diesel 1200
D70/E20/B10 1200 15
D50/E30/B20 1200
4 Diesel 1600
D70/E20/B10 1600
10
D50/E30/B20 1600
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
3 BMEP (MPa)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
BMEP (MPa) Delay period, 18º CA BTDC
40
Diesel 1200
Peak Cylinder Pressure, 21º CA BTDC D70/E20/B10 1200
35 D50/E30/B20 1200
8
Peak Cylinder pressure (MPa)

Diesel 1600
Delay period (ºCA)

D70/E20/B10 1600
30 D50/E30/B20 1600
7

25
6
20

5 Diesel 1200 15
D70/E20/B10 1200
D50/E30/B20 1200
D50/E40/B10 1200
4 Diesel 1600 10
D70/E20/B10 1600 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
D50/E30/B20 1600
D50/E40/B10 1600 BMEP (MPa)
3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
BMEP (MPa) Delay period, 21º CA BTDC
40
Diesel 1200
Fig. 6. Peak cylinder pressure. D70/E20/B10 1200
D50/E30/B20 1200
35 D50/E40/B10 1200
Diesel 1600
Delay period (ºCA)

D70/E20/B10 1600
speeds. The decrease in peak cylinder pressure for the blend at 21° 30
D50/E30/B20 1600
D50/E40/B10 1600
is mainly due to delayed combustion process and shifting of peak
cylinder pressure location to right of the TDC and at low loads of 25
both speeds. It is also observed that the peak cylinder pressure is
drastically increased with the advancing of the injection timing. 20
Advancing the injection timing means starting the combustion
process earlier and getting the peak heat release rate closer to 15
the TDC and the content of ethanol in the blend does not changed
this trend to the considerable extent especially at high loads. 10
Ignition delay is one of the important combustion parameter as 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
it affects start of combustion, cylinder pressure and rate of heat BMEP (MPa)
release. The ignition delay is a period between start of injection
and start of combustion. The static injection timing is noted as start Fig. 7. Ignition delay.
5050 D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055

displaced at low load (delayed), and maximum cylinder pressures attributed to heating value per unit mass of the ethanol, which is
are affected depending on the working conditions. The heat release noticeably lower than that of the diesel fuel. Therefore, the amount
analysis also shows rapid premixed combustion and improved dif- of fuel introduced into the engine cylinder for a desired fuel energy
fusive combustion at high loads for high ethanol content blends. input has to be greater with the ethanol. These results agree with
those found by other authors [27,28].
3.2. Brake specific fuel consumption The general trend of decrease in BSFC with load is observed for
blends similar to the diesel fuel at all the injection timing and
The effects of diesel–ethanol–biodiesel fuel blends and injection speeds. The decrease in BSFC could be explained by the fact that,
timings on the BSFC are shown in Fig. 8. The figure shows that the as the engine load increases, the rate of increasing brake power
brake specific fuel consumption trend for diesel and blends are is much more than that of the increased fuel consumption owing
similar in nature. The results showed that increasing ethanol to a rise in the combustion temperature (indicated by cylinder
proportion in the fuel blend increased the BSFC. This behavior is pressure) with load. The conversion of heat energy to mechanical
work increases with rise in combustion temperature and that leads
decrease of BSFC with respect to load.
BSFC, 13º CA BTDC Advancing the injection timing has very little effect on the BSFC
800 for all the blends and loads at both speeds. The combustion tem-
Diesel 1200
D70/E20/B10 1200 perature and pressure increases with advanced injection timing.
700 Diesel 1600 However, it is seen from the P–h and heat release diagrams that
D70/E20/B10 1600 the combustion process is started in compression stroke itself
BSFC (g/Kw-hr)

600 (especially at higher loads) when the injection timing is advanced


and piston has to the work against burning gases in compression
500 stroke. This would have nullified the effect of increased combus-
tion pressure and temperature on BSFC with respect to advanced
400 injection timing.

300 3.3. Brake thermal efficiency

200 BTE indicates the ability of the combustion system to accept the
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0. 5 0.6 0.7 experimental fuel, and provides comparable means of assessing
BMEP (MPa) how efficient the energy in the fuel was converted to mechanical
output. BTE results are presented in Fig. 9. It is observed that the
BSFC, 18 º CA BTDC BTE increased with load for high ethanol contents blends also like
800 the diesel fuel at all injection timings and speeds.
Diesel 1200
BTE is slightly increased for blends compared to diesel fuel at
D70/E20/B10 1200
700 high loads of both speeds and all injection timings. This can be
D50/E30/B20 1200
Diesel 1600
attributed to the rapid premixed combustion part possessed by
BSFC (g/Kw-hr)

600
D70/E20/B10 1600
ethanol blends because of improved mixing during ignition delay,
D50/E30/B20 1600
oxygen enrichment, leading to higher percentage of ‘constant vol-
500 ume’ combustion and to the lower heat losses and ‘leaner’ combus-
tion [29]. The improvement of diffusive combustion phase would
400 have also resulted due to oxygen enrichment. In addition, the total
combustion duration is shortened for blends. The heat release pro-
300 cess is almost completed at the position of same crank angle,
which is another aspect providing the evidence to support the fast
200 diffusive burning phases in the diesel–ethanol–biodiesel blends.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Based on these reasons, the energy consumption rate of blends de-
BMEP (MPa) creased and BTE increased as reported in [6,13,15]. However re-
sults obtained in [30] are showing the opposite trends. This
BSFC, 21 º CA BTDC indicates that the biodiesel, which is acting as a Cetane improver,
800 kept the combustion process centered also for high ethanol con-
Diesel 1200
D70/E20/B10 1200 tents blends especially at high loads.
D50/E30/B20 1200
700 D50/E40/B10 1200 It is also observed that the BTE is decreased for blends of high
Diesel 1600
D70/E20/B10 1600 ethanol content at low loads of 1600 RPM and 13° and 18° injection
BSFC (g/kW-hr)

600 D50/E30/B20 1600 timing. This is attributed to significantly delayed combustion pro-
D50/E40/B10 1600
cess and release of heat late in the expansion stroke owing to lower
500 cylinder temperature, lower Cetane index and high latent heat of
vaporization of high ethanol content blends.
400
3.4. Smoke emissions
300
The particulate matter (PM) is essentially composed of soot,
200 though some hydrocarbons, generally referred to as a soluble or-
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 ganic fraction (SOF) of the particulate emissions, are also adsorbed
BMEP (MPa) on the particle surface or simply emitted as liquid droplets. Among
the particulate matter components, soot is recognized as the main
Fig. 8. Brake specific fuel consumption. substance which is responsible for the smoke opacity. Smoke
D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055 5051

BTE, 13º CA BTDC Smoke, 13º CA BTDC


40 70
Diesel 1200

60 D70/E20/B10 1200
35
Diesel 1600
50 D70/E20/B10 1600
30

Opacity %
40
BTE %

25
30

20 20
Diesel 1200
D70/E20/B10 1200
15 10
Diesel 1600
D70/E20/B10 1600 0
10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
BMEP (MPa)
BMEP (MPa)
BTE, 18º CA BTDC Smoke, 18º CA BTDC
40 40
Diesel 1200
D70/E20/B10 1200
35 35
D50/E30/B20 1200
Diesel 1600
30 D70/E20/B10 1600
30
D50/E30/B20 1600

Opacity %
25
BTE %

25
Diesel 1200 20
D70/E20/B10 1200
20 15
D50/E30/B20 1200
Diesel 1600
15 10
D70/E20/B10 1600
D50/E30/B20 1600 5
10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0
BMEP (MPa) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

BTE, 21º CA BTDC BMEP (MPa)


40
Smoke, 21º CA BTDC
40
35 Diesel 1200
35 D70/E20/B10 1200
D50/E30/B20 1200
30 D50/E40/B10 1200
30
BTE ( % )

Diesel 1600
D70/E20/B10 1600
Opacity %

25 25 D50/E30/B20 1600
Diesel 1200 D50/E40/B10 1600
20
D70/E20/B10 1200
20 D50/E30/B20 1200
D50/E40/B10 1200
15
Diesel 1600
15 D70/E20/B10 1600 10
D50/E30/B20 1600
D50/E40/B10 1600 5
10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0
BMEP (MPa) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
BMEP (MPa)
Fig. 9. Brake thermal efficiency.
Fig. 10. Smoke density.

opacity formation occurs at the extreme air deficiency. The air or


oxygen deficiency is locally present inside diesel engines. It in- chemical control over soot formation. The tendency to generate
creases as the air/fuel ratio decreases. Soot is produced by oxygen soot by the fuel dense region inside a blend diffusion flame sheath
deficient thermal cracking of long-chain molecules [31]. Smoke is reduced, due improved mixing owing to better atomization and
opacity results are presented in Fig. 10 for different engine loads, vaporization of blends. This is also attributed to the engine running
speeds and injection timings. overall ‘leaner’, with the combustion being now assisted by the
The results show that the smoke is almost constant and negligi- presence of the fuel-bound oxygen of the ethanol and biodiesel
ble up to 0.3 MPa BMEP and increased at high loads for all the even in locally rich zones which seems to have the dominating
blends at all injection timings and speeds. The formation of smoke influence [32,33]. In-cylinder combustion photography showed
is strongly dependent on engine load. The air fuel ratio decreases lower luminosity flames for the ethanol blends, revealing the lower
with increase in load as the fuel injected increases, resulting in net soot produced percentages of the ethanol in its blends with
higher smoke [14]. diesel fuel [34,35]. This also proves the superior mixing of blends
It is observed that smoke decreases for blends compared to die- with air prior to premixed combustion phase and inbuilt oxygen
sel fuel, especially at high loads of all injection timings and speeds. in fuel results in more oxidation of soot particles to decreases the
The presence of atomic bound oxygen in ethanol satisfies positive smoke level in the exhaust.
5052 D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055

Excessive smoke is observed for blend A at 0.1 and 0.2 MPa NO Emissions, 13º CA BTDC
BMEP of 1600 RPM and 13° injections timing. The heat release dia- 20
gram shows that the premixed combustion is very slow and entire 18 Diesel 1200
heat release is shifted late in the expansion stroke at these operat- 16
D70/E20/B10 1200
ing conditions. This would have resulted in insufficient timing for Diesel 1600
14 D70/E20/B10 1600

NO (g/kW-hr)
soot oxidation (exhaust valve opens before the completion of soot
oxidation) and produced smoke to such a high level. 12
It is also noticed that advanced injection timing reduced smoke 10
emissions significantly at high loads. The maximum reduction is 8
about 35% for diesel fuel and 52% for blend A at 1200 RPM, when
6
the injection timing is advanced from 13° to 21° CA BTDC. The ear-
4
lier injection leads to higher cylinder temperatures, more time
available for oxidation of the soot particles before the exhaust 2
valve opens [14]. Inbuilt fuel oxygen and improved mixing for 0
the blend utilized the additional time more effectively than the 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
diesel fuel. BMEP (MPa)

3.5. NO emissions NO Emissions, 18º CA BTDC


20
The most troublesome emissions from CI engines are NOx. The 18
oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust emissions contain nitric oxide 16
(NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The formation of NOx is highly
14

NO (g/kW-hr)
dependent on in-cylinder temperatures, the oxygen concentration,
12
and residence time for the reaction to take place [30,36]. The
changes in the NO emissions at different engine speed and injec- 10
tion timing are shown in Fig. 11. It shows that the NO emissions 8 Diesel 1200
are decreased for blends at low load (0.1 Mpa BMEP) at both D70/E20/B10 1200
6
speeds and all injection timings. The significant decrease in the D50/E30/B20 1200
4 Diesel 1600
peak cylinder pressure is also observed for blends at this load indi-
D70/E20/B10 1600
cating the decrease in-cylinder gas temperature owing to higher 2
D50/E30/B20 1600
latent heat of vaporization of ethanol and increased ignition delay 0
due to lower Cetane index. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
It is also observed that NO emissions are increased for ethanol BMEP (MPa)
blended fuels compared to diesel fuel at other loads except 1600
RPM of 21° and 13° Injection timing. The ethanol blends are having NO Emissions, 21º CA BTDC
20
the oxygen contents, low viscosity which can lead to better mixing,
improved combustion and rise in-cylinder temperature. More igni- 18
tion delay of blend due to lower Cetane index increased fuel accu- 16
mulation during delay period. That is resulted in increased the 14
NO (g/kW-hr)

rate of premixed combustion and peak heat release rate at high


12
loads. On the other hand, the lower heating value of ethanol and
10
higher latent heat of vaporization (about 1.5 times greater than that
Diesel 1200
of diesel fuel), can decrease the peak temperature in the cylinder 8 D70/E20/B10 1200
[37,38]. It is clear from the analysis that the Cetane index and oxy- 6 D50/E30/B20 1200
D50/E40/B10 1200
gen content are more effective at 13° and 18° injection timing than 4 Diesel 1600
lower heating value and latent heat of vaporization with regard to D70/E20/B10 1600
2 D50/E30/B20 1600
increasing peak temperature in the cylinder and vice versa at D50/E40/B10 1600
0
1600 RPM of 21° and 13° Injection timing. Also additional reaction
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
time available at 21° injection timing of 1600 RPM could have in-
creased the NO emissions for diesel fuel compared to blends. The BMEP (MPa)
variations of NO emission for blends have mixed results in the pre- Fig. 11. NO emissions.
vious literature also. Some researches reported increase in NO emis-
sions [14–17,22] and some reported a decrease in NO emissions for
cylinder gas temperature, residence time for the reaction, provided
blends compared to diesel fuel [7,13,28,39]. This indicates that the
the excess air is available during the combustion process.
delicate balance weighing more on the one or the other side,
The NO emissions are decreased with speeds for all blends as
depending on the specific engine and its operating conditions [40]
well diesel fuels and no effect of high ethanol content is observed
has changed the NO emissions for high ethanol content blends also.
on this trend. The decreased combustion temperature and resi-
It is also noticed that NO emissions drastically increased with
dence time available for the reaction with increase of speed re-
advanced injection timing for blends as well as diesel. These results
sulted in decrease of NO emissions. Similar results are observed
are in agreement with those obtained by [41]. NO emissions are al-
in the studies done by author [6].
most doubled for blend as well as diesel at all loads when the injec-
tion timing was advanced from 13° to 21° CA BTDC for both speeds.
Cylinder gas temperature increased, with advanced injection tim- 3.6. CO emissions
ing as more fuel burns before TDC. Furthermore the residence time
for the reaction increases with advanced injection timing. It is a CO emission is toxic and an intermediate product in the
well known fact that NO formation is strongly depending on the combustion of a hydro carbon fuel, so it results from incomplete
D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055 5053

combustion. Emission of CO is, therefore, greatly dependent on the though enough oxygen was available for combustion. Slight reduc-
air–fuel ratio relative to the Stoichiometric proportions [37]. CO tion in CO emissions is noticed for blends at high load and that
emissions results are presented in Fig. 12. The trends of CO emis- would be due to inbuilt fuel oxygen and improved combustion pro-
sions shows that it depends on air fuel ratio as well as combustion cess due to better mixing. Some studies reported the reduction of
temperature and for a certain combination of air fuel ratio and CO emissions by using ethanol–diesel blends [39]; but our results
combustion temperature it is minimum. are opposite and reported as per [7].
The results showed that the CO emissions increased drastically The CO emission remains unchanged with respect to injection
at lower loads and decreased slightly at higher loads for the blends timing for blends as well diesel fuel at both speeds. The advanced
compared to diesel fuel. The drastic increase in the CO percentage injection timing should have produced a higher cylinder tempera-
at low load for blend is due to decrease in the cylinder gas ture to increase in the chemical reaction speed of combustion
temperature and delayed combustion process (noticed from P–h region. Also, the advanced injection timing should have increased
and heat release diagrams) The lower temperature and delayed the oxidation process between carbon and oxygen molecules to
combustion would have suppressed the oxidation process even
CO2 Emissions 13º CA BTDC
1600
CO Emissions 13º BTDC Diesel 1200
60 1500
D70/E20/B10 1200
Diesel 1200
1400 Diesel 1600
50 D70/E20/B10 1200
1300

CO2 (g/kW-hr)
D70/E20/B10 1600
Diesel 1600
CO (g/kW-hr)

40 D70/E20/B10 1600 1200

1100
30
1000
20
900

10 800

700
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BMEP (MPa)
BMEP (MPa)
CO2 Emissions, 18º CA BTDC
CO Emissions, 18º BTDC 1600
60 Diesel 1200
Diesel 1200 1500 D70/E20/B10 1200
D70/E20/B10 1200 D50/E30/B20 1200
50 D50/E30/B20 1200 1400 Diesel 1600
Diesel 1600 D70/E20/B10 1600
CO2 (g/kW-hr)

D70/E20/B10 1600 1300 D50/E30/B20 1600


CO (g/kW-hr)

40
D50/E30/B20 1600
1200
30 1100

1000
20
900
10 800

700
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
BMEP (MPa)
BMEP (MPa)
CO2 Emissions, 21º CA BTDC
CO Emissions, 21º CA BTDC 1600
60 Diesel 1200
Diesel 1200 D70/E20/B10 1200
D70/E20/B10 1200
1500 D50/E30/B20 1200
D50/E30/B20 1200 D50/E40/B10 1200
50 D50/E40/B10 1200 1400 Diesel 1600
Diesel 1600 D70/E20/B10 1600
CO2 (g/kW-hr)

D70/E20/B10 1600 1300 D50/E30/B20 1600


CO (g/kW-hr)

40 D50/E30/B20 1600 D50/E40/B10 1600


D50/E40/B10 1600
1200
30
1100

20 1000

900
10
800

0 700
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
BMEP (MPa) BMEP (Mpa)

Fig. 12. CO emissions. Fig. 13. CO2 emissions.


5054 D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055

reduce CO emissions as noticed in [41]. However the variation of 3.8. Free acceleration smoke emissions
CO emissions with respect to injection timing in this study is curios
and may be air fuel ratio would have played a major role compared One of the prime benefits of oxygenated fuel is to decrease
to the combustion temperature to keep CO emissions unchanged smoke emission of diesel engine and significant smoke reduction
with respect to injection timing. is observed for high ethanol content blends during steady state
running as discussed earlier (refer Fig. 10). Therefore peak smoke
3.7. CO2. emissions opacity during free acceleration mode is measured for diesel fuel,
blend A and blend B in order to check the benefits in transient
CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere and is a normal product mode also. It is observed that the peak smoke is decreased for
of hydrocarbon fuel combustion. Ideally, combustion of a hydro- blend A but substantially increased for blend B at 21° injection tim-
carbon fuel should produce only CO2 and water (H2O). Fig. 13 de- ing as shown in Table 3a–c. However, peak smoke emissions are
scribes effect of using ethanol blended diesel fuels on CO2 drastically increased for blend A also at 13° injection timing com-
emission. The CO2 emissions are not affected for blends compared pared to diesel fuel as shown in Table 3d and e. This indicates that
to diesel fuel at all the working conditions except low load combustion quality (ignition delay) is more effective than oxygen
(0.1 MPa BMEP). Poor combustion characteristics of blends at low content in fuel for smoke emission during free acceleration. More
load increased fuel consumption to get the same power and thus detailed combustion analysis, during this transient mode, is
CO2 emissions increased for blends. needed to know the reasons behind such behavior of high ethanol
It is clear from Fig. 13 that advanced injection timing has no ef- content blends.
fect on CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions are unchanged at all
loads even if injection timing is increased to 21° from 13° CA BTDC. 4. Conclusions
However, as per the previous research [41] it is increased for diesel
as well as ethanol diesel blends by more than 40% when injection Jatropha derived biodiesel (methyl ester) addition, in adequate
timing is advanced to 33° from 21° CA BTDC. Their results also quantity, in the blends of diesel and ethanol, drastically improved
showed substantial rise in CO2 emissions for every 3° CA advance the solubility of ethanol in diesel fuel. Oxygen content increased up
in injection timing. However, increased CO2 with respect to ad- to 14.53% by weight keeping the Cetane index within limit for
vanced injection timing could have noticed with decrease in CO blend C (highest ethanol fraction blend). It is required to advance
emissions. injection timing up to 21° from 13° CA BTDC (original injection
timing), to run the engine on blend C. However, advancing the
injection timing almost doubled NO emissions and increased peak
Table 3
Peak smoke during free acceleration. cylinder pressure for blends as well diesel fuel. BSFC is increased
for blends as a consequence of reduced energy content, however,
Speed (RPM) Temperature Peak smoke Peak smoke (%
the thermal efficiency improved slightly.
(°C) (m1) opacity)
From To Smoke reduced remarkably for blends especially at medium and
high loads of both speeds and all injection timings. Maximum reduc-
(a) D100 (21° BTDC)a
742 2678 75 1.82 54.4 tion is about 60% to 70% at higher loads for respective high ethanol
728 2678 75 1.87 55.4 content blend at all injection timing and speeds. Advancing injection
731 2666 75 2.14 60.3 timing reduced the smoke for all blends and diesel fuel at both
735 2678 76 1.88 55.6 speeds. Significant reduction in smoke is observed for high ethanol
(b) D70/E20/B10 (21° BTDC)b content blends; however reduction in smoke does not indicate the
761 2714 81 1.46 46.7 reduction in particulate matter in same proportion. Therefore, the
765 2777 83 1.49 47.4
773 2740 83 1.72 52.4
effect of these blends on PM emissions needs to be checked.
773 2715 84 1.97 57.3 NO emissions are decreased for blends at lowest load of 0.1 MPa
773 2655 84 1.74 52.7 BMEP of all working conditions. It is slightly increased at other
775 2727 84 1.85 54.9 loads except 1600 RPM and 21° and 13° Injection timing. This
(c) D50/E30/B20 (21° BTDC)c indicates latent heat of vaporization is more effective than Cetane
765 2643 73 4.58 86.1 index and oxygen content at these operating conditions. The injec-
763 2643 73 5.28 89.7
tion timing is required to be advanced for use of high percentage
763 2643 73 6.39 93.6
763 2654 74 5.65 91.2 ethanol blends. However, it leads to increase in NO emissions
735 2690 74 6.39 93.6 drastically, therefore, suitable NO reducing methods such as EGR,
763 2777 75 6.02 92.5 catalytic converters; SCR shall be adopted to permit use of these
789 2655 75 5.59 91 blends.
749 2752 76 5.59 91
CO emissions are drastically increased at low loads and de-
753 2631 76 6.66 94.3
764 2643 76 6.78 94.6 creased slightly at high loads for the blends. This indicates that
(d) D100 (13° BTDC)d
combustion process of these blends approaches to the diesel com-
765 2690 73 2.07 59.1 bustion process with increase in load (engine working tempera-
761 2690 75 2.19 61.1 ture). This is also observed from the study of Pressure crank
749 2702 76 2.13 60.1 angle and net heat release rate diagrams.
742 2702 77 1.83 54.3
Blend B having oxygen content up to 12.21%, Cetane index of 50
(e) D70/E20/B10 (13° BTDC)e has given the satisfactory performance for the steady state running
761 2608 75 8.67 97.6
mode up to 1600 RPM. However, it does not show the benefit on
753 2643 76 10.70 99.0
735 2619 77 11.53 99.3 smoke emission during the free acceleration, rather it is increased
to maximum level. This indicates that ignition delay is more effec-
a
Remark: Average peak opacity 56.4%.
b
tive on smoke emission than inbuilt fuel oxygen during free accel-
Remark: Average peak opacity 54.3%.
c
Remark: Opacity more than 65% which is above the acceptable limit.
eration. Therefore performance of these blends at high RPM and
d
Remark: Average peak opacity 58.7%. transient running modes, need to be investigated further. The use
e
Remark: Opacity more than 65% which is above the acceptable limit. of Cetane enhancer and advancing the injection timing would
D.B. Hulwan, S.V. Joshi / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5042–5055 5055

probably lead to better performance at high speeds and accelera- [17] Xiaoyan S, Xiaobing P, Yujing M, Hong H, Shijin S, Jianxin W, et al. Emission
reduction potential of using ethanol–biodiesel–diesel fuel blend on a heavy-
tion running modes. Literature shows that, there is increase in
duty diesel engine. Atmos Environ 2006;40:2567–74.
the aldehyde emissions with ethanol blended fuels. Therefore, [18] Hadi R, Barat G, Talal Y, Gholamhasan N, Mahdi K. Diesterol: an environment-
the measurement of aldehyde emission, particulate matter and friendly IC engine fuel. Renew Energy 2009;34(1):335–42.
optimization of NO reduction method shall be carried out before [19] Shi X, Yu Y, He H, Shuai S, Dong H, Li R. Combination of biodiesel–ethanol–
diesel fuel blend and SCR catalyst assembly to reduce emissions from a heavy-
going for the commercial use of diesel–ethanol–biodiesel blends duty diesel engine. J Environ Sci 2008;20:177–82.
with high ethanol content. [20] Fernando S, Hanna M. Development of a novel biofuel blend using ethanol–
biodiesel–diesel microemulsions: EB diesel. Energy Fuels 2004;18:1695–703.
[21] Makareviciene V, Sendzikiene E, Janulis P. Solubility of multi-component
Acknowledgements biodiesel fuel systems. Bioresour Technol 2005;96:611–6.
[22] Shi X, Yu Y, He H, Shuai S, Wang J, Li R. Emission characteristics using methyl
soyate–ethanol–diesel fuel blends on a diesel engine. Fuel 2005;84:1543–9.
This project is financially supported by Board of College and [23] Hulwan DB, Joshi SV, Agahv YV. Smoke prediction of a turbocharged diesel
University Development, University of Pune, India. The help of engine during free acceleration. IREME 2007(May):323–31.
Vishwakarma Institute of Technology Pune in conducting the [24] Park Su Han, Kim Se Hun, Lee Chang Sik. Mixing stability and spray behavior
characteristics of diesel–ethanol–methyl ester blended fuels in a common-rail
experiments in the laboratories of Centre for Energy and Environ- diesel injection system. Energy Fuels 2009;23:5228–35.
mental studies and the financial support provided is also highly [25] Huang ZH, Lu HB, Jiang DM, Zeng K, Liu B, Zhang JQ, et al. Combustion
appreciated. characteristics and heat release analysis of a compression ignition engine
operating on a diesel/methanol blend. Proc Inst Mech Engrs Part D: J Automob
Eng 2004;218.
[26] Huang ZH, Jiang DM, Zeng K, Liu B, Yang ZL. Combustion characteristics and
References
heat release analysis of a direct injection compression ignition engine fuelled
with diesel–dimethyl carbonate blends. Proc Inst Mech Engrs Part D: J
[1] Graboski MS, McCormick RL. Combustion of fat and vegetable oil derived fuels Automob Eng 2003;217.
in diesel engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1998;24:125–64. [27] Abdel-Rahman AA. On the emissions from internal-combustion engines. Int J
[2] Durbin TD, Norbeck JM. Effects of biodiesel blends and EC-diesel on emissions Energy Res 1998;22:483–513.
from light heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 2002;36:1686–91. [28] Ajav EA, Singh B, Bhattachary TK. Experimental study of some performance
[3] Durbin TD, Collins JR, Norbeck JM, Smith MR. Effects of biodiesel, biodiesel parameters of a constant speed stationary diesel engine using ethanol–diesel
blends and a synthetic diesel on emissions from light heavy-duty diesel blends as fuel. Biomass Bioenergy 1999;17:357–65.
vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 2002;34:349–55. [29] Hansen AC, Taylor AB, Lyne PWL, Meiring P. Heat release in the compression-
[4] Lee SW, Herage T, Yong B. Emission reduction potential from the combustion ignition combustion of ethanol. Int J Am Soc Agric Biol Engrs, Trans ASAE
of soy methyl ester fuel blended with petroleum distillate fuel. Fuel 1989;32(5):1507–11.
2004;83:1607–13. [30] Ajav EA, Singh B, Bhattacharya TK. Performance of a stationary diesel engine
[5] Ahmed I. Oxygenated diesel: emissions and performance characteristics of using vaporized ethanol as supplementary fuel. Biomass Bioenergy 1998;
ethanol–diesel blends in CI engines. SAE Technology Paper 2001-01-2475. 15(6):493–502.
[6] Lu Xing-Cia, Yang JG, Zhang WG, Huang Z. Effect of Cetane number improver [31] Schobert HH. The chemistry of hydrocarbon fuels. England: Butterworth–
on heat rate and emissions of high speed diesel engine fueled with ethanol– Heinemann Ltd.; 1990.
diesel blend fuel. Fuel 2004;83:2013–20. [32] Xiao Z, Ladommatos N, Zhao H. The effect of aromatic hydrocarbons and
[7] He BQ, Shuai SJ, Wang JX, He H. The effect of ethanol blended diesel fuels on oxygenates on diesel engine emissions. Proc Inst Mech Engrs, J Automob Eng
emissions from a diesel engine. Atmos Environ 2003;37:4965–71. 2000;214:307–32.
[8] Zhang RD, He H, Shi XY, He BQ, Wang JX. Preparation and emission [33] Boruff PA, Schwab AW, Goering CE, Pryde EH. Evaluation of diesel fuel–ethanol
characteristics of ethanol–diesel fuel blends. J Environ Sci 2004;16:793–6. micro emulsions. Int J Am Soc Agric Biol Engrs, Trans ASAE 1982;25(1):47–53.
[9] McCormick RL, Parish R. Technical barriers to the use of ethanol in diesel fuel. [34] Xingcai L, Zhen H, Wugao Z, Degang L. The influence of ethanol additives on
Milestone Report to NREL/MP-540-32674; 2001. the performance and combustion characteristics of diesel engines. Combust
[10] Gerdes KR, Suppes GJ. Miscibility of ethanol in diesel fuels. Ind Eng Chem Sci Technol 2004;176:1309–29.
Fundam 2001;40:949–56. [35] Chen H, Shuai S, Wang J. Study on combustion characteristics and PM emission
[11] Hansen Alan C, Zhang Qin, Lyne Peter WL. Ethanol–diesel fuel blends – a of diesel engines using ester–ethanol–diesel blended fuels. Proc Combust Inst
review. Bioresour Technol 2005;96:277–85. 2007;31:2981–9.
[12] Kumar Chandan, Athawe M, Aghav YV, Babu Gajendra, Das LM. Effects of [36] Challen B, Baranescu R. Diesel engine reference book. 2nd ed. England:
ethanol addition on performance, emission and combustion of DI diesel engine Butterworth and Heinemann Publishing; 1999.
running at different pressures. SAE Paper 2007-01-0626. [37] Heywood JB. Internal combustion engines. USA: McGraw-Hill; 1984.
[13] Racopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Racopoulos DC. Experimental heat release [38] Nwafor O, Rice G, Ogbonna A. Effect of advanced injection timing on the
analysis and emissions of a HSDI diesel engine fueled with ethanol–diesel fuel performance of rapeseed oil in diesel engines. Renew Energy 2000;21:433–44.
blends. Energy 2007;32:1791–808. [39] De-gang L, Huang Z, Lu X, Zhang WG, Yang JG. Physico-chemical properties of
[14] Ozer C, Ismet C, Nazım U. Effects of ethanol addition on performance and ethanol–diesel blend fuel and its effect on performance and emissions of diesel
emissions of a turbocharged indirect injection Diesel engine running at engines. Renew Energy 2005;30:967–76.
different injection pressures. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:2429–40. [40] Corkwell KC, Jackson MM, Daly DT. Review of exhaust emissions of
[15] Magin L, Octavio A, Herreros Jose M. Emissions from a diesel–bioethanol blend compression ignition engines operating on E diesel fuel blends. SAE Paper
in an automotive diesel engine. Fuel 2008;87(1):25–31. 2003-01-3283.
[16] Prommes K, Apanee L, Samai Jai-In. Solubility of diesel–biodiesel–ethanol [41] Cenk S, Kadir U, Mustafa C. Influence of injection timing on the exhaust
blend, its fuel properties and its emission characteristics from diesel engine. emissions of a dual-fuel CI engine. Renew Energy 2008;33:1314–23.
Fuel 2007;86:1053–61.

You might also like