Professional Documents
Culture Documents
C) 6 9 6 6 ASTM D97
Flash point (
bTDC
Nozzle hole diameter and number 0.3 mm and 3
Fuel spray angle 120
0.2
Engine characteristics
Brake power (kW) e e 1.4
Total fuel consumption (kg/h) e e 1
Brake specic fuel consumption (kg/kWh) e e 1.7
Brake specic energy consumption (kJ/kWh) e e 1.7
Brake thermal efciency (%) e e 0.05
Fig. 3. Brake specic fuel consumption for test fuels.
G.R. Kannan, R. Anand / Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687 1683
4.2. Emission characteristics
The carbon monoxide (CO) emission of the biodiesel and all
micro emulsion fuels increases with increasing load condition is
shown in Fig. 6. COemissions in micro emulsion fuels increase with
load more than of biodiesel. But however, it falls exactly on the
same line with the diesel fuel COemission at 100% load condition. It
is observed that diesel fuel emits 0.3% CO at maximum load
condition whereas with biodiesel it is 0.12%. The reduction in CO
emission of biodiesel is mainly due to the oxygen content of bio-
diesel which enhances the complete combustion in the cylinder
[25]. CO emission of micro emulsion fuels is higher than that of
biodiesel but slightly lesser than that of diesel value. This is because
of a thickened quench layer created due to the cooling effect of
ethanol and water present in the diestrol micro emulsion fuel
because of its high latent heat of vaporization. The higher latent
heat of vaporization could be the reason for the poor oxidation rate
of CO due to lower gas temperature which reduces the combustion
efciency and increases the CO emission [26].
The variation of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emission with BMEP is
shown in Fig. 7. The emission of CO
2
is expected to increase with
increasing load. Under all engine loads the CO
2
emission of diesel
fuel is higher than that of biodiesel and all micro emulsion fuels.
Biodiesel exhibits 17% CO
2
lower emission than that of diesel at
100% load condition. This is mainly due to the lower carbon content
of biodiesel in an equal volume of fuel consumed at the same load
[20]. All micro emulsion fuels show higher CO
2
emission than
biodiesel. It can be explained that the higher oxygen content and
increasing ignition delay period of micro emulsion fuels lead to
complete combustion.
The comparison between the test results of unburnt hydro-
carbon (UHC) for different fuels is shown in Fig. 8. The lowest UHC
emission is recorded for biodiesel as 24 ppm at BMEP of 6.29 bar.
This is due to the higher oxygen content and cetane number of
biodiesel. This causes higher combustion efciency and decreases
the amount of UHC emission [27]. From Fig. 8, it can be observed
that all the micro emulsion fuels have higher UHC emission than
biodiesel under all load conditions. This is due to the quench layer
of unburned ethanol present in combustion chamber and the high
latent heat of vaporization of water that results in low gas
temperature environment. This low gas temperature environment
inside the cylinder makes it difcult for the micro emulsion fuels to
evaporate which resulted in higher UHC emission [28e30].
The smoke emission for different fuels is shown in Fig. 9. The
smoke emissionof biodiesel falls exactlyinlinewiththat of diesel up
to medium load conditions. At 100% load condition, the smoke
emission of biodiesel is 7.2% lower than diesel, which is due to the
high oxygencontent and lowsulfur content of biodiesel. The oxygen
content of biodiesel provides certain advantages like post ame
oxidation and increases the ame speed during the air fuel inter-
actions, particularly in the fuelerich region. Indeed, it reveals the
presence of the oxygen content of biodiesel which enhances the
hydrocarbonoxidation[14]. The micro emulsionfuels exhibit smoke
reductionwhen compared to biodiesel and diesel fuel. FromFig. 9, it
can be observed that the smoke emission with B70D10E20M micro
emulsionfuel gave avalue that 10.5%thandiesel and3.3%lower than
biodiesel at full load condition. This can be explained by the higher
oxygen content of micro emulsion fuels. Further, the cooling of fuel
air mixture due to the presence of ethanol and water increases the
Fig. 4. Brake specic energy consumption for test fuels.
Fig. 6. Effect of BMEP on CO emission for test fuels.
Fig. 5. Comparison of brake thermal efciency with BMEP for test fuels. Fig. 7. Comparison of BMEP and CO
2
emission of test fuels.
G.R. Kannan, R. Anand / Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687 1684
ignition delay which resulted in better mixing of fuel with air that
leads to complete combustion [28].
The variations of NO emission with BMEP are shown in Fig. 10.
NO emission increases with the increasing load for all tested fuels.
The micro emulsion fuels show lower NO emission compared to
biodiesel. At a maximum load condition, the NO emission with
diesel is 578 ppm whereas with biodiesel it is 485 ppm. This is
mainly due to the lower iodine value (i.e., 57.3) of the biodiesel
[31,32]. It was observed that micro emulsion fuels gave NO emis-
sion that were 19.72% lower than diesel and4.32% lower than bio-
diesel at maximum load condition. It can be explained that the
higher latent heat of vaporization of ethanol and water decreases
the cylinder temperature resulting in reduced NO emission [33].
4.3. Combustion characteristics
The comparison of cylinder gas pressure for diesel, biodiesel and
micro emulsion fuels at 100% load condition is shown in Fig. 11. The
cylinder gas pressure is higher for the micro emulsion fuels;
especially B70D10E20M micro emulsion shows a higher value of
73.73 bar at 374.8
CA. This is due to the long ignition delay period
of all micro emulsions which starts the combustion close to TDC.
The maximum cylinder gas pressure of 73.51 bar was noted at
367.22
CA and 25.16 J at
374.8
CA respectively. It is observed that crank angle corre-
sponding to the maximum heat release rate was smaller for all
micro emulsion fuels. The higher HRR peak for micro emulsion
fuels is mainly due to the addition of ethanol and water which
causes reduction in cetane number and increases the ignition delay
period. Hence, more amount of fuel is available for combustion due
to the increased delay period which increases the heat release rate
at all load conditions.
The variation of ignition delay period for different test fuels is
illustrated in Fig. 14. Ignition delay is the period between the start
of fuel injection into the combustion chamber and the start of
combustion. It was computed by calculating the change in slope of
the pressure crank angle diagram, and from a heat release analysis
of the pressure crank angle data [34]. The ignition delay period
Fig. 8. Variation of UHC emission with BMEP for test fuels.
Fig. 10. Variation of NO emission with BMEP for test fuels.
Fig. 9. Smoke emission for biodiesel, diesel fuel and its blends.
Crank angle ( degree )
320 340 360 380 400 420
)
r
a
b
(
e
r
u
s
s
e
r
p
s
a
g
r
e
d
n
i
l
y
C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Diesel
B100
B70D10E20M
B60D20E20M
Fig. 11. Cylinder gas pressure with crank angle at 100% load condition.
G.R. Kannan, R. Anand / Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687 1685
decreases with increasing load. At a lowload condition, the cylinder
residual gas temperature and wall temperature is lesser, which
causes lower mixture temperature at fuel injection leading to an
increases in ignition delay period. At a high load condition, the gas
temperature is high, which reduces the physical delay. FromFig. 14,
it can be noticed that biodiesel shows shorter ignition delay among
all other test fuels. This is mainly due to the high cetane number of
biodiesel. All micro emulsion fuels have higher ignition delay
period when compared with biodiesel and diesel. At 100% load
condition, the ignition delay period of B60D20E20M is 0.42
CA
higher than diesel. This can be attributed to the lower cetane
number of ethanol, higher latent heat of vaporation of ethanol and
water that increases the ignition delay period.
The variation of combustion duration of diesel, biodiesel and
diestrol micro emulsion fuels under different load condition is
shown in Fig. 15. The difference in crank angle value corresponding
to 5% and 95% of the mass burnt has been considered as the
combustion duration [22]. The combustion duration of all the fuels
increases with increasing load condition due to the accumulation of
more fuel inside the cylinder. At a low engine load condition,
diestrol micro emulsion fuels had longer combustion duration. This
is due to the low temperature environment inside the cylinder that
leads to a longer ignition delay period of the micro emulsion fuels
which in due course will delay the combustion to expansion
process. This results in a poor combustion. At medium and high
load condition, reduction in combustion duration of micro emul-
sion fuels is observed. Faster combustion rate due to high
temperature in premixed and controlled combustion phase of
micro emulsion fuels is the reason for reduction in combustion
duration.
5. Conclusions
The effect of biodiesel, biodieseledieseleethanol (diestrol)
micro emulsion fuels on performance, emission and combustion
characteristics of direct injection diesel engine have been investi-
gated in this study. Based on the experimental results, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1. Though diestrolewater micro emulsion fuels showed higher
BSFC, a slight improvement in BSEC was observed. However,
the brake thermal efciency remained almost the same as that
of diesel fuel.
2. The use of diestrolewater micro emulsion fuels resulted
particularly in lower NO and smoke emissions than in diesel
fuels but there was a slight increase in CO, CO
2
and UHC
emissions when compared to biodiesel.
3. At higher engine loads, an increase in the cylinder gas peak
pressure, heat release rate, ignition delay and combustion
duration for the diestrolewater micro emulsion fuels can be
noted against that of diesel fuel.
The detailed experimental investigation conrms that dies-
trolewater micro emulsion fuels can be used as a suitable alter-
native to diesel without modifying the engine. The scope for further
BMEP ( bar )
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
)
A
C
e
e
r
g
e
d
(
y
a
l
e
d
n
o
i
t
i
n
g
I
0
5
10
15
20
Diesel
B100
B70D10E20M
B60D20E20M
Fig. 14. Ignition delay period with BMEP for different test fuels.
BMEP ( bar )
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
C
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
s
p
e
a
k
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
b
a
r
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Diesel
B100
B70D10E20M
B60D20E20M
Fig. 12. Cylinder gas peak pressure with BMEP for different fuels.
Crank angle ( degree )
320 340 360 380 400 420
)
A
C
e
e
r
g
e
d
/
J
(
e
t
a
r
e
s
a
e
l
e
r
t
a
e
H
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Diesel
B100
B70D10E20M
B60D20E20M
Fig. 13. Heat release rate with crank angles at 100% load condition.
BMEP ( bar )
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
)
A
C
e
e
r
g
e
d
(
n
o
i
t
a
r
u
d
n
o
i
t
s
u
b
m
o
C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Diesel
B100
B70D10E20M
B60D20E20M
Fig. 15. Combustion duration with BMEP for different test fuels.
G.R. Kannan, R. Anand / Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687 1686
development of the diestrolewater micro emulsions fueled engine
will rest on the methods to improve the fuel consumption.
Reduction in BSFC may be achieved by the addition of cetane or
ignition improvers in diestrolewater micro emulsion fuels without
increasing the NO emission. In addition to this, emission control
components like particulate lters and catalytic converters might
be needed to reduce the particulate, unburnt hydrocarbon, carbon
monoxide and NO emissions. The lower ash point of these fuels
calls for safety procedure in their handling. The safety procedure to
be adopted can include tting of ame arrestors on the fuel tank.
Further, the long term durability test of engine will be needed to
conrm that these fuels do not affect the engine durability.
References
[1] Pereira PA, Santos ETS, Ferreira TF, de Andrade JB. Determination of methanol
and ethanol by gas chromatography following air sampling onto orisil
cartridges and their concentrations at urban sites in the three largest cities in
Brazil. Talanta 1999;49:245e52.
[2] Pang X, Mu Y, Yuan J, He H. Carbonyl emission from ethanoleblended gasoline
and biodieseleethanolediesel used in engines. Atmospheric Environment
2008;42:1349e58.
[3] Lapuerta M, Armas O, GarciaeGontreras R. Stability of dieselebioethanol
blends for use in diesel engines. Fuel 2007;86:1351e7.
[4] Shi X, Yu Y, He H, Shuai S, Wang J, Li R. Emission characteristics using methyl
soyateeethanolediesel fuel blends on a diesel engine. Fuel 2005;84:1543e9.
[5] Pang Xiaobing, Shi Xiaoyan, Mu Yujing, He Hong, Shuai Shijin, Chen Hu, et al.
Characteristics of carbonyl compounds emission from a dieseleengine using
biodieseleethanolediesel as fuel. Atmospheric Environment 2006;40:7057e65.
[6] Tsolakis A, Megaritis A, Wyszynski ML, Theinnoi K. Engine performance and
emissions of a diesel engine operating on dieseleRME (rapeseed methyl ester)
blends with EGR (exhaust gas recirculation). Energy 2007;32(11):2072e80.
[7] Lauperta M, Armas O, Jose RF. Effect of biodiesel fuels on diesel engine
emissions. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2008;34(2):198e223.
[8] Qi DH, Chen H, Geng LM, Bian YZH, Ren XCH. Performance and combustion
characteristics of biodieseledieselemethanol blend fuelled engine. Applied
Energy 2010;87:1679e86.
[9] Huang Jinchen, WangYaodong, Li Shuangding, Roskilly Antony P, YuHongdong,
Li Huifen. Experimental investigation on the performance and emissions of
a diesel engine fuelled with ethanolediesel blends. Applied Thermal Engi-
neering 2009;29:2484e90.
[10] McCormick RL, Parish R. Milestone report: technical barriers to the use of
ethanol in diesel fuel. NREL/MPe540e32674. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory; 2001. 1e19.
[11] Fernando S, Hall C, Jha S. NO
x
reduction from biodiesel fuels. Energy Fuels
2006;20:376e82.
[12] Defries TH, Kishan S, Smith MV, Ullman Anthony J. The Texas diesel fuels
project, part 1: development of TxDotespecic test cycles with emphasis on
a route technique for comparing fuel/water emulsions and conventional
diesel fuels. SAE Paper; 2004. No 2004e01e0090.
[13] Fernando S, Hanna M. Development of a novel biofuel blend using etha-
nolebiodieselediesel micro emulsion: EBediesel. Energy Fuels 2004;18
(6):1695e703.
[14] Anand R, Kannan GR, Nagarajan S, Velmathi S. Performance emission and
combustion characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with biodiesel produced
from waste cooking oil. SAE Paper; 2010. No 2010e01e0478.
[15] Lin CY, Lin SA. Effects of emulsication variables on fuel properties of two and
threeephase biodiesel emulsions. Fuel 2007;86(1):210e7.
[16] Wang F, Fang B, Zhang ZQ, Zhang SY, Chen YD. The effect of alkanol chain on
the interfacial composition and thermodynamic properties of diesel oil
microeemulsion. Fuel 2008;87(12):2517e22.
[17] De Caro Satge P, Mouloungui Z, Vaitilingom G, Berge JC. Interest of combining
an additive with dieseleethanol blends for use in diesel engines. Fuel 2001;80
(4):565e74.
[18] Ali Y, Hanna MA, Borg JE. Optimization of diesel, methyl tallowate and ethanol
blend for reducing emissions from diesel engine. Bioresource Technology
1995;52(3):237e43.
[19] Mani M, Nagarajan G. Inuence of injection timing on performance, emission
and combustion characteristics of a DI diesel engine running on waste plastic
oil. Energy 2009;34:1617e23.
[20] Devan PK, Mahalakshmi NV. Performance, emission and combustion charac-
teristics of poon oil and its diesel blend in a DI diesel engine. Fuel
2009;88:861e7.
[21] Doebelin Ernest O, Manik Dhanesh N. Measurement systems. 5th ed. Tata
McGraw Hill; 2007. p. 62.
[22] Hui Qi Dong, Chen Hao, Fon Lee Chia, Min Geng Li, Zhang Bian Yao. Experi-
mental studies of a naturally aspirated, DI diesel fuelled with etha-
nolebiodieselewater micro emulsions. Energy Fuels 2010;24:652e733.
[23] Cheng CH, Cheung CS, Chan TL, Lee SC, Yao CD, Tsang KS. Comparison of
emission of a direct injection diesel engine operating on biodiesel with
emulsied and fumigated methanol. Fuel 2008;87(10):1870e9.
[24] Kadota T, Yamasaki H. Recent advances in the combination of water fuel
emulsion. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2002;28(5):385e404.
[25] Ramadhas AS, Muraleedharan C, Jayaraj S. Performance and emission evalu-
ation of a diesel engine fueled with methyl esters of rubber seed oil.
Renewable Energy 2005;30:1789e800.
[26] Senthil Kumar M, Kerihuel A, Bellettre J, Tazerout J. Ethanol animal fat
emulsions as a diesel engine fuelepart 2: engine test analysis. Fuel 2006;85
(17e18):2646e52.
[27] Nwafor OMI. Emission characteristics of diesel engine operating on rapeseed
methyl ester. Renewable Energy 2004;29:119e29.
[28] Qi DH, Chen H, Matthews RD, Bian YZH. Combustion and emission charac-
teristics of ethanolebiodieselewater microe emulsions used in a direct
injection compression ignition engine. Fuel 2010;89:958e64.
[29] Karabektas Murat, Hosoz Murat. Performance and emission characteristics of
a diesel engine using isobutanolediesel fuel blends. Renewable Energy
2009;34:1554e9.
[30] Addy Majewski W, Khair Magdi K. Diesel emissions and their control.
Warrendale: USA: SAE International; 2006.
[31] McCormick RL, Tennant CJ, Hayes RR, Black S, Ireland J, McDaniel T, et al.
Regulated emissions from biodiesel tested in heavy-duty engines meeting.
Emission Standards; 2004. SAE paper 2005; No 2005e01e2200.
[32] Lauperta M, Armas O, RodriguezeFernandez J. Effect of the degree of unsa-
turation of biodiesel fuels on NO
x
and particulate emissions. SAE Paper; 2008.
No 2008e01e1676.
[33] Musculus Mark PB, John ED. Effects of waterefuel emulsions on spray and
combustion processes in a heavyeduty DI diesel engine. SAE Paper; 2002. No
2002e01e2892.
[34] Heywood JohnB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. USA: Tata
McGraweHill; 1988. p. 505.
G.R. Kannan, R. Anand / Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687 1687