Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

An experimental investigation of performance-emission trade

off of a CI engine fueled by dieselecompressed natural gas (CNG)
combination and dieseleethanol blends with CNG enrichment
Abhishek Paul a, *, Probir Kumar Bose b, Raj Sekhar Panua a, Rahul Banerjee a
a
b

Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Agartala 799055, India

National Institute of Technology, Agartala 799055, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 24 November 2012
Received in revised form
1 April 2013
Accepted 2 April 2013
Available online 8 May 2013

In order to comply with the ever-stringent emission norms throughout the world and crunch in petroleum reserves, the modern day automobile industry is compelled to hunt for new and alternative
means of fuel sources to keep the wheels spinning globally. Paradoxical objectives of attaining simultaneous reduction in emission along with high performance has provided with a few alternatives. The
present study deals with one such approach in which the potential of diesel ethanol blending and
subsequent CNG (compressed natural gas) enrichment have been investigated. The study starts with a
miscibility test of ethanol in diesel, which paves the way for an experimental comparison between
performance and emission characteristics of DieseleEthanol blends, DieseleCNG combinations and
DieseleEthanol blends with CNG enrichment. The results indicates that diesel ethanol blend D95E5 (95%
diesel 5% ethanol) with low CNG enrichment produces a better performance-emission characteristics as
compared to base diesel operation as well as dieseleethanol blend operation. Results also portrayed
ethanols potential in reducing NOx emission, BSEC and smoke opacity.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Dieseleethanol blend
CNG enrichment
BSEC
NOx-opacity-BSEC equivalent trade off

1. Introduction
Amidst ever decreasing fuel resources and constantly increasing
air pollution, the fundamental sustainability of present energy
system has been put into question. The present reserve of petroleum products is slowly dying out, widening the gap between
global energy supply and energy consumption. As per 2008, energy
used on a global scale is about 142.3 Terawatt-Hour, which is about
39% higher than that of 1990 [1]. Moreover, in order to meet the
stringent EUROeVI standards, automobile manufacturers are
compelled to try out emission, more precisely NOx and smoke
reducing alternatives like ethanol, CNG (compressed natural gas)
etc. As a result a lot of the research studies are now oriented towards nding a cleaner burning fuel with satisfactory combustion
and performance signatures.
Ethanol with its inherent properties such as high latent heat of
vaporization and low caloric value has been established as a
commendable adjutant of diesel in reducing toxic emissions.
Diesel- ethanol blended fuels have several advantages including

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: v1.abhishek@gmail.com (A. Paul).
0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.04.002

improvement of the atomization of charge, reducing NOx emission,

improving cold ow properties of the fuel and improving fuel lubricity. Also owing to its inherent oxygen content, ethanol has the
potential of signicantly reducing particulate emission. However, a
major constrain that reduces its use of ethanol in diesel is its limited
miscibility [2,3]. Also, ethanol blended diesel has lower volumetric
heat content that is caused by comparative low heating value of
ethanol, that can only be prevented by increasing capacity of the
fuel pump. Moreover, loss of engine efciency and performance is
also a major concern owing to the lower cetane number of ethanol.
Park et al. [4] investigated the emission reduction characteristics
of bio-ethanol blended diesel fuel at early injection condition
including spray, atomization, and evaporation characteristics. Their
study revealed that the effect of ethanol blending on the spray
behavior is more evident at early injection condition. Their study
also revealed that the bio-ethanol blending caused an increase in
indicated mean effective pressure with an extension of the ignition
delay. The analysis of emission parameters showed that the cooling
effect of the bioethanol fuel reduced NOx. The HC emission
increased and the CO emission decreased because of the ethanol
blending. Sukjit et al. [5] investigated the effects of methyl ester
addition on combustion and emission characteristics of ethanoldiesel and butanolediesel blends. Their results showed that 15%

788

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

Nomenclature
CNG
CO2
BSEC
HC
BSFC
THC
TDC
UBHC
mSec
EGR
DAQ
D95E5
ROHR

compressed natural gas

carbon dioxide
brake specic energy consumption
hydrocarbon
brake specic fuel consumption
total hydrocarbon
top dead center
unburned hydrocarbon
micro second
exhaust gas recirculation
data acquisition
95% (v/v) diesel and 5%(v/v) ethanol
rate of heat release

of all methyl esters was enough to avoid phase separation of

alcoholediesel blends. For combustion, the use of alcohol blends
shows a clear benet in terms of CO and soot emissions with
respect to biodiesel blends with the same oxygen content. Kannan
et al. [6] investigated the performance, combustion and emission
characteristics of a CI engine fueled by different biodieselediesele
ethanol blends with water micro emulsion. Their results indicated
that biodiesel and micro emulsion fuels had a higher brake specic
fuel consumption (BSFC) than that of diesel along with slight
improvement in the brake specic energy consumption (BSEC).
Emission analysis of the engine showed that characteristics like
carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), unburnt hydrocarbon
(UHC), nitric oxide (NO) and smoke emissions for biodiesel and
micro emulsion fuels were lower than diesel fuel at all load conditions. Lapuerta et al. [7] measured the emission from a 4-cylinder,
4-stroke, turbocharged, intercooled, direct injection diesel engine
using anhydrous bio-ethanol blended with conventional diesel,
with 10% ethanol in volume and no additives. The results obtained
proved ethanol in diesel provided a signicant reduction on particulate emissions, with no substantial increase in other gaseous
emissions. Huang et al. [8] experimentally investigated the performance and emissions of a diesel engine fueled with ethanole
diesel blends. Their results revealed that the thermal efciencies of
the engine fueled by the blends were comparable with that fueled
by diesel, with some increase of fuel consumptions. Emission
analysis also showed that increased at low loads and low speed; the
hydrocarbon (HC) emissions were all higher except for the top
loads at high speed. Kwanchareon et al. [9] studied the Solubility of
a dieselebiodieseleethanol blend, its fuel properties, and its
emission characteristics from diesel engine. The study concluded
that blends containing 5% ethanol had very close fuel properties
compared to diesel fuel. As for the emissions of the blends; it was
found that CO and HC were reduced signicantly at high engine
load, whereas NOx increased, when compared to that of diesel.
Irshad Ahmed [10] in his work studied the Emissions and Performance Characteristics of EthanoleDiesel Blends in CI Engines. This
study concluded that laboratory and eld tests demonstrate over
41% reduction in PM, 27% reduction in CO, and 5% reduction in NOx
from a HD diesel engine. Ali Mohammadi et al. [11] utilized
Ethanol-diesel blend fuels in partial Premixed Charge Compression
Ignition (PCCI) combustion to achieve cleaner diesel engine emission using a naturally aspirated single cylinder DI diesel engine
equipped with common rail injection and cooled EGR (exhaust gas
recirculation) systems. The results of this study indicated great
improvement in PM and NOx emissions with penalties in thermal
efciency, THC (total hydrocarbon) and CO emissions. Bang-Quan
He et al. [12] investigated the combustion and Emission

D90E10 90% (v/v) diesel and 10%(v/v) ethanol

TSU
total sampling uncertainty
20%DCNG-0 20% load condition, diesel without CNG
cSt
centistokes
20%DCNG-1 20% load condition, diesel with CNG strategy 1
LHV
lower heating value
20%DE5 20% load condition, D95E5 blend without CNG
NOx
oxides of nitrogen
20%DE10 20% load condition, D90E10 blend without CNG
NO
nitric oxide
20%DE5CNG-1 20% load condition, D95E5 with CNG strategy-1
CO
carbon monoxide
20%DE10CNG-1 20% load condition, D90E10 with CNG strategy1

Characteristics of Diesel Engines Using Ethanol Blended Diesel

Fuels. The results indicate that with the increase of ethanol in the
blends, smoke reduces signicantly, BSEC improves slightly and
combustion duration decreases with increases in NOx, and acetaldehyde emissions. Hardenberg and Schaefer [13] studied the
combustion of ethanol in compression ignition engines, which
revealed some attractive properties of this fuel, such as low black
smoke, NOx and hydrocarbon emissions. zer Can et al. [14]
investigated the effects of ethanol addition on performance and
emissions of a turbocharged indirect injection Diesel engine. Their
results showed that the ethanol addition reduces CO, soot and SO2
emissions along with an increase in NOx emission and signicant
penalties in power output. Yan et al. [15] investigated the effects of
different dieseleethanol fuel blends on the performance and
emissions of a single-cylinder engine. The results reveled lower NOx
emission from the engine but with penalties of greater formaldehyde, formic acid, and acetaldehyde emissions.
Among the alternative fuels, methane, a key constituent of CNG,
is also considered very promising because it can provide clean
combustion and can work with high compression ratios without
experiencing the knock phenomenon. Carlucci et al. [16] investigated the combustion characteristics of a direct injection CI engine
with dieseleCNG duel fuel strategy. It was observed that an analysis
of the ROHR (Rate of Heat Release) is not sufcient to explain the
effect of each of the injection parameters on the pollutant emissions. In the case of NOx, it was found that the penetration of the jet
holds the same importance as the quantity of pilot fuel injected.
Kalam and Masjuki [17] studied the performance of natural gas
engines with diesel injection. The analysis of the results revealed
that CNG bi-fuel system produced lower brake power than CNG
direct injection system. In addition, the CNG-DI (CNG Direct injection) engine reduced 42% NOx emission as compared to the base
engine. However, the CNG-DI engine produced higher HC and CO
emissions as compared to the base engine. Maji et al. [18] studied
the performance and emission characteristics of a 7.35 kW fourstroke, twin cylinder, direct injection (DI) diesel engine which
was operated in dual fuel mode with substitution of up to 75%
diesel with CNG. It was observed in this study that the substitution
of CNG reduced the noise level, specic fuel consumption, NOx,
however increased the unburned hydrocarbons. Shenghua et al.
[19] studied the Combustion characteristics of compressed natural
gas in a diesel dual-fuel turbocharged compressed ignition engine.
This study showed that under low-speed and low-load operating
conditions, the rate of pressure rise was rather high. HC and CO
emissions increased with increase in methane concentration. It was
also observed that an increase in pilot diesel can extend the lean
burning limit and decrease HC and CO emissions, but has the

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

opposite effect on NOx emission. Kusaka et al. [20] studied the

Combustion and exhaust gas emission characteristics of a diesel
engine dual- fueled with natural gas. Their study revealed that at
20% load and natural gas fraction 80%, EGR combined with intake
heating could favorably reduce HC emission with the improvement
of thermal efciency. Moreover, NOx can be reduced due to the
effect of EGR on decreased combustion temperature. Papagiannakis
et al. [21] studied the Emission characteristics of high speed, dual
fuel, and compression ignition engine operating in a wide range of
natural gas-diesel fuel proportions. From the analysis of the
experimental data, it was found that the decrease of the total
relative airefuel ratio, which was caused by the increase of diesel
fuel supplementary ratio, results to a lower brake thermal efciency thus revealing the deterioration of the engine efciency
under dieselenatural gas dual fuel operating mode. Dual fuel operations also lead to a signicant decrease of soot emissions.
The present work aims to combine the performance and emission properties of both ethanol and CNG by fueling an existing
4stroke, single cylinder CI engine with different blends of Diesele
Ethanol and enriching the blends with CNG at different injection
durations. The limited miscibility of ethanol was experimentally reevaluated in course of this study. On the other hand, CNG was port
injected into the engine for different injection durations, with pilot
injection of diesel and dieseleethanol blends to ignite the natural
gas. Finally, a performance e emission trade-off study was conducted to nd a suitable fuel combination that can used as an
effective alternative to conventional diesel operation.
2. Experimental details and methodology

789

studies two blends viz. D95E5 (95% diesel, 5% Ethanol) and D90E10
(90% diesel, 10% Ethanol) were chosen for engine testing. The
properties of these blends such as Caloric value, Density, Kinematic Viscosity and the cetane number etc. were calculated on the
basis of base fuels, diesel and ethanol by using Eqs. (1)e(3) [22].
These properties are shown in Table 1.

xi  ri  Qcal;i
P
xi  r i

 

xd  rd  Qcal;d xeth  reth  Qcal;eth

xd  rd xE  reth

Qcal;mix

(1)

xi  ri  wvis;i
P
xi  ri

 

xd  rd  wvis;d xeth  reth  wvis;eth

xd  rd xeth  reth

wvis;mix

P
CNmix

x  CNd xeth  CNeth

xi  CNi
d
100
100

(2)

(3)

where,

Qcal;mix Calorific Value of a blend to be determined:

wvis; mix Kinematic viscosity of a blend to be determined:
CNmix Cetane number of a blend to be determined:
xi Volume percentage of a base fuel in the blend:
xd ; xeth Volume percentage of a base fuel in the blend:
rd ; reth Density of diesel and ethanol respectably:
Qcal;d: Qcal;eth; Calorific value of diesel and ethanol respectably

2.1. Selection of fuels and their properties

The fuels selected for evaluation of performance, combustion
and emission characteristics of the engine were low sulfur HS
diesel, 99.5% pure Ethyl Alcohol and CNG. Research indicates that a
major issue, which reduces the use of ethanol in diesel, is its limited
miscibility in diesel. Several works in the past suggest that blends
with bioethanol contents up to 10% v/v could be used in diesel
engines in countries where winter temperatures does not drop too
low. In course of this work, a comprehensive study of miscibility of
ethanol in diesel was carried out. By gradually increasing the
ethanol percentages, several dieseleethanol blends were created
with 5%, 8%, 10%, 12%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30% ethanol with 95%, 92%,
90%, 88%, 85%, 80%, 75% and 70% of diesel respectably. Study of
these samples as seen in Fig. 1, showed that beyond 10% (v/v) of
ethanol, all blends showed instant phase separation, while blend
with 12% ethanol showed delayed phase separation. Based on these

CNG was routed to the engine via a series of safety devices,

combined in a circuit (Fig. 2), to reduce the pressure and to ensure
better safety. The CNG from the main cylinder was rst piped into a
secondary storage to reduce the pressure from 196 Bar to 150 Bar.
This was followed by a pressure reducer of CONCOA make, that
reduced the pressure to 5 Bar from 150 Bar. This 2-stage pressure
reduction is signicant as it not only provided better control over
CNG pressure but also acted as a safeguard to the main cylinder
against any backre. The gas ow into the cylinder was measured by
a gas ow meter. A solenoid controlled gas injector regulated the
injection of CNG into the intake manifold. The designing of CNG
injection strategies involved a thorough study of the valve-timing
diagram of the test engine as shown in Fig. 3. It can be observed
that the inlet valve opens 4.5 before TDC (Top dead Center)
and exhaust valve closes 4.5 after TDC. This creates a
(4.5 4.5 ) 9 of valve overlap. So the induction period remains

Fig. 1. Miscibility study of dieseleethanol blends.

790

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

Table 1
Properties of fuel blends.
Property

Diesel

Ethanol

E5D95

E10D90

Density (kg/m3)
Kinematic viscosity (cSt)
Caloric value (KJ/Kg)
Flash point ( C)
Fire point ( C)
Cetane number

820
2.51
42650
52
64
46

789
1.09
26950
12.77
13.5
7

818.45
2.44
41893.24
50.038
61.475
44.05

816.9
2.37
41133.62
48.077
58.95
42.1

(180 35.5 4.5 )9 221.In order inject the CNG right at the
start of combustion, it was injected 10 after TDC, which reduces the
effective induction period to (221 e10 ) 211.In order to study the
effect of different amount of CNG on combustion, performance and
emission of the test engine, this effective induction period of 211
was divided into 5 parts, each at approximately 42 apart. As a
result, CNG was injected for 42 , 84 , 126 , 168 and 210 of crank
rotation, which means, for the 1st injection strategy, CNG was
injected for 42 of crank rotation, for 2nd injection strategy CNG was
injected for 84 and so on. Now these injection durations are converted from crank angle to time scale by using Eq. (4). It is worth
mentioning that these CNG strategies were engine speed dependent
and varied slightly for different blends. Upon calculation, it can be
seen that, on an average, CNG was injected for about 4000 mSec for
CNG strategy 1, about 7500 mSec for CNG strategy 2, about
12,000 mSec for CNG strategy 3, about 15,000 mSec for CNG strategy 4
and about 18,000 mSec for CNG strategy 5. These strategies thus
produced a consistently increasing CNG enrichment regime that
provided a platform for studying the effect of different CNG injection rates on performance and emission of the engine.


Injection duration

mSec:

where,

60  q  106
N  360

(4)

q Degree of crank rotation for a specific injection strategy:

N RPM for the same strategy:
2.2. Experimental setup
A 3.6 kW single cylinder water cooled CI engine was used in this
work. The engine was equipped with eddy current dynamometer

Fig. 3. Valve timing diagram.

(Make: Saj test plant Pvt. Ltd) for load measurement. A crank angle
sensor (Make: Kubler) was used to measure the engine RPM. It was
calibrated in terms of 1-degree interval. The TDC (Top Dead Center)
position of the ywheel was also calibrated in order to develop a
proper data acquisition algorithm through a commercial data
acquisition software. A piezoelectric pressure transducer (Make:
KISTLER) was used to measure in cylinder pressure. The analog pick
up voltages of the transducers were fed to a NI-DAQ card through a
signal conditioner to lter the out noise. The major specications of
the engine are given in Table 2.An AVL 5 gas analyzer (AVL Digas
444) and an AVL smoke meter (AVL Digas 437) was employed to
measure emission of CO, UBHC (unburned hydrocarbon), NOx and
smoke opacity in line of the raw exhaust. The whole circuit is
depicted in Fig. 4.

Fig. 2. Original CNG ow circuit.

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

Table 2
Specications of test Engine.
Engine type
Bore and stoke
Max. power
CR range
Swept volume
Combustion System
Fuel Injection pressure

Kirloskar, Model TV-1, 4 stoke

Water cooled,VCR Engine.
87.5 mm and 110 mm
3.6 Kw
12e18
661 cc
Direct injection.
205 BAR

2.3. Methodology
Before experimenting with fuel blends, the engine was run on
diesel to get a reference set of data, which can be used as benchmark while comparing the performance and emission characteristics of different blends. It is worth mentioning that diesel runs
were conducted with manifold injection of CNG with 5 different
injection strategies as mentioned earlier. Once the base of the experiments was set by the data obtained by the base fuels, fuel
blends were introduced one at a time and each time CNG was
inducted into the system via intake manifold. The fuel blends were
prepared and were given sufcient time to settle down to a homogeneous mixture. The experimental data was acquired by DAQ
system. All the data for a particular pilot fuel blend and CNG injection duration was averaged for 80 cycles to compensate any
cyclic variations of observations. Again each set of data were taken
6 times to and averaged to increase authenticity of readings. The
loading was done by controlling the voltage of the electromagnet of
the eddy current dynamometer. As variation of load caused a
change in engine speed, so the engine was run for a while after each
loading so the it comes to a constant speed state. Moreover, in order
to get a steadier reading, the engine was allowed to run for 5 min
after each injection of CNG for all the strategies. In addition, to avoid
any contamination of the base fuels, after using each blend, the
complete fueling system was cleaned thoroughly with Acetone.

791

observation accuracy and the methodology of experimentation in a

given ambient condition requires a comprehensive uncertainty
analysis, so that the repeatability of the experimentation can be
conrmed. The accuracy of the computed performance and emission parameters are calculated on the basis of the corresponding
components of engine and emission analysis instrumentation, as
declared by their respective manufacturers [6]. The combined uncertainty analysis for the performance parameters has been carried
out on the basis of the root mean square method where the total
uncertainty U of a quantity Q has been estimated, depending on the
independent variables x1, x2,.,xn (i.e., Q f [x1,x2,.,xn]) having
individual errors Dx1, Dx2,.,Dxn is given by Eq. (5) [23]. The combined uncertainty analysis of the performance parameters Bth and
BSFC equivalent has been carried out by taking into consideration
the uncertainty of measurement of all instruments that are used for
measuring respective data streams. The percentage of uncertainty
of the performance parameters is shown in Table 3.

s


2 
2
2
vU
vU
vU
DU
DX1
DX2 .
DXn
vX1
vX2
vXn

(5)

The accuracy of emission parameters was calculated on the basis

of the average value of six consecutive observations over a sampling
span of 120 s. The level of accuracy of the measuring instruments,
i.e. AVL DiGAS 444 ve-gas analyzer and AVL 437 Smoke meter are
given in Table 4 [6]. The total sampling uncertainty (TSU) of each
observation set was computed as per Eq. (5) at each case of engine
operation taking into account the sampling uncertainty of the
emission analyzer for each of the respective pollutants and the
relative range of the consecutive observations. In order to increase
the trustworthiness of the measured data and its error analysis, an
additional index of standard deviation of consecutive sampling has
been computed at each engine operating condition. The total
sampling uncertainty (TSU) and the standard deviation of the
emission parameters in shown in Table 5.
4. Result and discussion

3. Measured data uncertainty analysis

4.1. In cylinder pressure
The error arising in the experimental measurement of emission
parameters and the derived engine performance parameters
because of the employed instrumentation, its calibration,

The in-cylinder pressure was measured to investigate the effects

of ethanol addition in diesel and effect of CNG enrichment on

Fig. 4. Complete Experimental Setup Circuit Diagram.

792

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

Table 3
Total percentage of uncertainty of computed performance parameters.
Computed performance parameter

Measured
variables

Instrument involved
in measurement.

% Uncertainty
of measuring
instrument [23]

BP (brake power)

Load, RPM

BSFC (brake specic fuel consumption

SFC(liquid fuel),
BP

BSFC Equivalent (equivalent

brake specic fuel consumption),BSEC
(brake specic energy consumption)

SFC (liquid fuel)

BP
CNG ow

Load sensor,
Load indicator,
Speed measuring Unit.
Fuel measuring unit, fuel
ow transmitter,
As for BP measurement.
As for SFC measurement,
As for BP measurement,
CNG mass ow controller.

0.2,
0.1,
1.0.
0.065,
1.5,
1.02.
1.81,
1.02,
0.25

combustion characteristics of these blends. Fig. 5AeF, Figs. 6 and

7AeF gives the pressure variation of dieseleCNG combination,
dieseleethanol blends and dieseleethanol blends with CNG
enrichment respectably.
Fig. 5AeF shows the in cylinder pressure distribution prole for
dieseleCNG combination. It can be easily seen that low amount of
CNG enrichment of diesel, especially CNG strategy-1 showed
pressure picks similar to diesel for all load conditions. All the curves
here show a secondary rise in cylinder pressure, followed by a
pressure loss and again a primary and prominent pressure hike. The
1st pressure rise is due to motoring effect that continues up to TDC
(360 crank angle). After that, the piston starts its descent towards
BDC (Bottom Dead Center), which causes a loss of pressure.
Meanwhile, the charge that is pumped into the cylinder mixes
properly with air and ignites due to high temperature and pressure
inside the cylinder. Therefore, the 2nd pressure pick is the result of
combustion. Moreover, the higher auto ignition temperature of
CNG (540  C) [24,25] also has marginally shifted the peak pressure
to a higher crank angle. It was also observed that with increasing
CNG injection, the in cylinder pressure decreased, which is an
indication that either CNG is unable to provide sufcient energy
density inside the cylinder or the charge might be chocking in
absence of sufcient air as CNG has replaced some of the intake air.
Fig. 6AeF shows the in cylinder pressure variation for diesele
ethanol blends. It can be seen from the graphs that in cylinder
pressure for dieseleethanol blends are lower than pure diesel
operation. It is interesting to nd that ethanol pushes the peak
pressure towards higher crank angles, which is evident in all
loading conditions. The difference in ash point of diesel (227  C)
[26] and ethanol (326  C) [26] may have caused this shift. Due to
the lower ash point, the diesel of the dieseleethanol blends ignites at a comparatively lower in cylinder temperature and causes a

Table 4
Accuracy of emission measuring instruments.
Instrument

Measuring
range

Accuracy

AVL DiGAS 444 ve

gas analyser
Carbon Monoxide (CO)

0e10% Vol

Carbon Dioxide(CO2)

0e20% Vol

Hydrocarbon (HC)

0e20,000
ppm Vol
0e5000
ppm Vol.
0e22% Vol

<0.6% vol: 0.03% vol >

0.6% vol: 5%
<10% vol: 0.5% vol >
10% vol: 5% vol
<200 ppm vol: 10
ppm vol > 200 ppm vol: 5%
<500 ppm vol: 50 ppm
vol. 500 ppm vol: 10%
<2% vol: 0.1% vol  2%
vol: 5% vol

NOx
Oxygen (O2)
AVL 437 smoke meter
Smoke opacity

0e100%

1%

Calculation

Total % uncertainty of
computed parameters.

q
0:22 0:12 1:02

1.02.

q
0:0652 1:52 1:022

1.81

q
1:812 1:22 0:252

2.09

further rise in in-cylinder temperature. When the in cylinder

temperature reaches the ash point of ethanol, it also burns to
further increase the temperature and pressure of the cylinder. As a
combined effect, the pressure release shifts towards higher crank
angle. The lower energy density and low cetane number of ethanol
also have reduced the cumulative energy density of the blend,
which caused a decrease in in-cylinder pressure.
Fig. 7AeF shows the variation of in cylinder pressure for diesele
ethanol blends with CNG enrichment. The graphs Clearly show that
dieseleethanol blends with CNG enrichment produces much less in
cylinder pressure as compared to dieseleCNG combination for all
load conditions. This might be due to the combined effect of lower
caloric value and high auto ignition temperature of ethanol &
CNG. Here it is worth mentioning that at all load conditions, D95E5
blend with low CNG injection (CNG strategy 1 & 2) caused the
highest-pressure rise among all CNG enriched dieseleethanol
blends. Again, these graphs also show a decrement in in-cylinder
pressure with increasing CNG content that is seen for dieseleCNG
combinations.
4.2. Performance parameters
In this present study brake thermal efciency (Bth), and Brake
specic Energy consumption (BSEC) has been analyzed as the
indices of performance characteristics of different duel fuel
operation.
4.2.1. Brake thermal efciency
Brake thermal efciency refers to ratio of brake power output to
power input of the engine. Figs. 8e10 represents the variation of
brake thermal efciency at different load conditions when the
engine was operated with dieseleCNG combination, Diesele
Ethanol blends, and DieseleEthanol blends with CNG enrichment.
Fig. 5 shows that the brake thermal efciency of the engine with
dieseleCNG combination consistently decreased with increasing
CNG induction. The pressure curves shown in Fig. 5AeF also shows
a reduction in in-cylinder pressure which signies that CNG

Table 5
Average% TSU and average std. deviation in observation/sampling of all measured
emissions.
CO
Average TSU(%)
D100
0.336
D95E5
0.482
D90E10
0.374
Average Std. deviation
D100
0.000157
D95E5
0.000157
D90E10
0.000236

UBHC

NOx

% Opacity

0.610
1.748
3.755

0.508
0.745
2.538

0.267
0.496
0.786

0.079
0.252
0.541

0.126
0.609
1.613

0.065
0.079
0.052

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

793

Fig. 5. A: Variation of cylinder pressure at 20% load for DieseleCNG combination, B: Variation of cylinder pressure at 40% load for dieseleCNG combination, C: Variation of cylinder
pressure at 60% load for DieseleCNG combination, D: Variation of cylinder pressure at 80% load for DieseleCNG combination, E: Variation of cylinder pressure at full load for Diesele
CNG combination, F: Variation of cylinder pressure at 120% load for DieseleCNG combination.

enrichment of diesel is incapable of providing sufcient energy

density inside the engine cylinder. Further, replacement of intake
air by CNG has also reduced the breathing capacity of the engine,
resulting a dropping of Bth. Diesel without any CNG enrichment
showed the highest brake thermal efciency of 18.54% at 120% load
condition and diesel with highest CNG injection strategy showed
the lowest Bth of 0.95% at 20% load condition. Maji et al. [18] also
had similar ndings.
For dieseleethanol blends as depicted in Fig. 9, the Bth was
found to increase with increasing ethanol percentage as D95E5
showed highest Bth of 20.93% at 120% load. The Bth developed by
D90E10 was found to be consistently higher than D95E5 and D100
at all load conditions with a highest increase of 11.04% at full load
condition as compared to plane diesel operation. The pressure
curves shown in Fig. 6AeF also show a higher-pressure development for D90E10, which signies a better combustion and relatively higher energy release. Similar results were obtained by
Huang et al. [8].
Fig. 10 shows the effect of CNG enrichment with dieseleethanol
blends. It is quite evident that dieseleethanol blends shows a
mixed response when they are enriched with CNG. At low and

medium load conditions, D90E10 with minimal CNG injection (CNG

strategy-1) shows a maximum increase of 2% and 4.45% in Bth
respectably. At full load condition, D90E10 with minimal CNG injection (CNG strategy-1) shows a maximum increase of 0.97%. At
excess load condition (120% of full load), D95E5 with minimal CNG
injection (CNG strategy-1) shows a maximum increase of 6.32%.
These results aids to the fact that minimal CNG injection helps in
enhancing the brake thermal efciency of the engine that is pilot
fueled dieseleethanol blends.
4.2.2. Brake specic energy consumption
BSEC as dened in Eq. (6) indicates the efciency of the engine
with which the input energy content of the fuel is utilized by the
engine during combustion. Figs. 11e13 shows the variation of Brake
specic energy consumption (BSEC) of the engine at different loads
for different fuel combinations. Fig. 11 shows the variation of BSEC
of the engine fueled by diesel with different CNG strategies. It is
clear from the Figure that BSEC gradually increases with increasing
inclusion of CNG. Highest increase in BSEC of 80.18% in this case, is
observed with highest CNG induction (CNG Straregy-5). Maji et al.
[18] also had similar ndings.

794

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

Fig. 6. A: Variation of cylinder pressure at 20% load for Diesel- Ethanol combination, B: Variation of cylinder pressure at 40% load for dieseleEthanol combination, C: Variation of
cylinder pressure at 60% load for dieseleEthanol combination, D: Variation of cylinder pressure at 80% load for dieseleEthanol combination, E: Variation of cylinder pressure at 60%
load for dieseleEthanol combination, F: Variation of cylinder pressure at 80% load for dieseleEthanol combination.

Fig. 12 shows the effect of dieseleethanol blends on BSEC. At low

load (40% of load), D95E5 shows decrease of 5.02% in BSEC, whereas
D90E10 shows a decrease of 12% as compared to diesel. Similarly, at
80% load, D95E5 showed a decrease of 2.18% and D90E10 showed a
decrease of 2.97%. Therefore, it is evident from this graph that increase in ethanol percentage reduces the BSEC of the engine.
Hansenet al. [27] also had similar ndings.
However, as per Fig. 13, increase in CNG inclusion again increases the BSEC of dieseleethanol blends. The best BSEC characteristics for dieseleethanol blends are found with lowest CNG
injection (CNG strategy 1). Among the blends, D90E10 showed a
consistent decrease in BSEC of 2.19% at low load, 4.17% at medium
load and 1.19% at full load condition, whereas, D95E5 showed an
increase of 15.81%, 5.56% and 4.82% at the same load conditions.
Almost all other CNG strategies with dieseleethanol blends showed
higher BSEC as compared to diesel.



m  LHVD mEth  LHVEth mCNG  LHVCNG
BSEC kJ=kg D
BP
(6)

where, mD ; mEth ; mCNG Mass flow rate of diesel; ethanol and CNG
respectably:LHVD ; LHVEth ; LHVCNG Lower Calorific value of
diesel; ethanol and CNG respectably:
4.3. Emission parameters
4.3.1. 1Carbon monoxide emission
Carbon monoxide (CO) is formed during the combustion process
with rich fuel-air mixtures and when there is insufcient oxygen to
fully burn all the carbon in the fuel to CO2. Figs. 14e16 shows the CO
emission at different load conditions for all fuel combinations. As
per the Figures, it is quite evident that neither CNG enrichment nor
ethanol blending can reduce the CO formation, which is an indication of incompleteness of combustion. For dieseleCNG combination (Fig. 14), consecutive increase in CNG injection durations
resulted in subsequent increase in CO emission, with CNG strategy
5 showing an increase in CO emission of 41.37% at 40% load, 70% at
80% load, and 94.21% at 120% load. This increase in CO emission
with increasing CNG content is an indication of insufcient oxygen
inside the cylinder during combustion. Kalam et al. [17] also had
similar ndings.

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

795

Fig. 7. A: Variation of cylinder pressure at 20% load for dieseleEthanol combination with CNG Enrichment. B: Variation of cylinder pressure at 40% load for dieseleEthanol
combination with CNG Enrichment. C: Variation of cylinder pressure at 60% load for dieseleEthanol combination with CNG Enrichment. D: Variation of cylinder pressure at 80% load
for dieseleEthanol combination with CNG Enrichment. E: Variation of cylinder pressure at full load for dieseleEthanol combination with CNG Enrichment. F: Variation of cylinder
pressure at 120% load for dieseleEthanol combination with CNG Enrichment.

Fig. 8. Variation of Bth with Load for D-CNG combination.

Fig. 9. Variation of Bth with Load for DieseleEthanol blends.

796

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

Fig. 10. Variation of Bth with Load for DECNG combination.

Fig. 12. Variation of BSEC with Load for DieseleEthanol blends.

As for dieseleethanol blends (Fig. 15), the increase of ethanol

percentage gradually increased the CO emission. It is also interesting to note that the increase in CO emission with ethanol
blending is much lower than that of diesel with different CNG injection strategies. For example, D95E5 and D90E10 blends showed
an increase of 13.33% and 43.7% at 40% load, 10.71% and 16.67% at
80% load and 2.1% and 8.33% at 120% load, which were lower than
any dieseleCNG combination. The increase of CO emission with
Dieseleethanol blending may be due to lower heating value of
ethanol that leads to a lower in cylinder temperature, causing
incompleteness in combustion. Kass et al. [28] also observed similar
trends.
DieseleEthanol blends with CNG enrichment (Fig. 16) also
showed the dominance of CNG on CO emission. Similar to Diesele
CNG combination, DEeCNG combination also showed increase in
CO emission with increasing CNG injection, which is again an
indication towards incomplete combustion of the charge inside the
cylinder due to absence of sufcient air as CNG owing to its indirect
injection, replaces a part of the air intake. This is also in accordance
with the pressure variation curves as shown in Fig. 7AeF.
4.3.2. NOx emission
The main cause for the increase of NOx is high combustion
temperature and equivalent ratio [4,29]. The emission of NO and

NO2 (NOx) from the engine at different load conditions for different
fuel combinations is shown in Figs. 17e19. It is apparent from the
Figures that in terms of NOx reduction, both CNG and ethanol are
quite effective. In the case of DieseleCNG combination, reduction of
NOx emission is distinctly observed with increasing CNG injection.
The Reduction of NOx emission with dieseleCNG combination is
apparent from the above Fig. 17. As per the Figure, it is evident that
other than CNG strategy 1 at 80% load condition, the emission of
NOx has decreased consistently with increasing CNG injection
duration for all load conditions. CNG strategy 1 to 5, which signies
consistently increasing CNG injection duration into the cylinder,
produced a maximum reduction in NOx emission by 33%, 47.43%,
61.3%, 68.57% and 66.49% respectably. This is mainly due to cool gas
entering into engine cylinder, so that the overall combustion is
completed at low in cylinder temperature [17]. Further absence of
excess oxygen due to CNG replacing intake air also aids in lower
NOx formation.
Dieseleethanol blends viz. D90E10 and D95E5, depicted in
Fig. 18 showed a consistent reduction of NOx emission with
increasing ethanol volume in the blends as compared to diesel. At
20%, load condition D95E5 and D90D10 showed a reduction of
36.36% and 69.7% in NOx emission. At 60% load condition the both
blends produced a reduction of 33% whereas, at 120% load condition the blends produced a reduction of 1.06% 18.3% respectably.

Fig. 11. Variation of BSEC with Load for DCNG combination.

Fig. 13. Variation of Bth with Load for DECNG combination.

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

797

Fig. 14. Variation of CO emission with load for D-CNG combination.

Fig. 16. Variation of CO emission with load for DE-CNG combination.

The cooling effect of the ethanol in the blended fuels reduces the
temperature of the combustion cylinder and suppresses the formation of NOx. Generally, the cooling effect of ethanol fuel with a
high latent heat of vaporization is more dominant than the combustion promotion by the oxygen content in the ethanol fuel at the
low engine load condition [4].
Dieseleethanol blends with CNG enrichment as shown in Fig. 19
also depicts a consistent drop in NOx emission as a combined effect
of simultaneous increase in ethanol percentage volume in the
blend and CNG injection durations. A maximum reduction of
91.29% was observed by D90E10 blend with CNG strategy 5 at full
load condition. Here, the charge is not only cooled by ethanol (for
its high latent heat of vaporization) and CNG (as cooler gas is
injected into the cylinder) but also there is a shortage of oxygen
required for proper combustion. This causes a signicant reduction
in NOx emission.

emission for dieseleethanol is very low. Compared to the results

obtained with CNG enrichment, the UBHC emissions from diesele
ethanol blends are signicantly low.
Rise of unburned hydrocarbon is more prominent with
increasing CNG strategy (Fig. 20) with diesel as base fuel. The
highest unburned hydrocarbon emission of 352 ppm was observed
with highest CNG injection (CNG Strategy 5) at 20% load, which
about 311 ppm (almost 8.5 times) higher than that of Diesel at the
same load condition. The rise in unburned hydrocarbon with
increasing CNG involvement may be due to the fact that methane is
slower to react than other hydrocarbon and the ame speed may be
too slow for combustion at very lean mixture. With increasing load,
the mean effective pressure rises, causing a higher exhaust temperature, which causes reduction of unburnt hydrocarbons [18].
For dieseleethanol blends, as shown in Fig. 21, UBHC was
although higher than diesel, but was very much within the range.
Highest emission of unburned hydrocarbon of 90ppm is observed
with D90E10 blend at 20% load condition. At higher load conditions,
the UBHC emissions are almost same as diesel. Blending of ethanol
causes a reduction in in-cylinder temperature due to the higher
heat of evaporation of ethanol, which causes a slower evaporation
and locally lower equivalence ratio. The extension of the ignition
delay is also one of the reasons for the increase in HC emission by
ethanol blending [4].
CNG enrichment of these blends also increased the UBHC
emission. It is interesting to note from Fig. 22, that D90E10 showed
considerable lower UBHC emission than D95E5 for similar CNG
injection strategies, which is indicative that ethanol inclusion have

4.3.3. Unburned hydrocarbon

Unburnt Hydrocarbon emissions are the results of incomplete
combustions [18]. HC emission variation with engine loads for the
fuel combinations are shown in Figs. 20e22. It is apparent from the
observation that the HC emission increases with both ethanol inclusion and increasing CNG injection, although increase of UBHC

Fig. 15. Variation of CO emission with load for DieseleEthanol Blends.

Fig. 17. Variation of NOx emission with load for D-CNG combination.

798

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

Fig. 18. Variation of NOx emission with load for DieseleEthanol Blends.

Fig. 20. Variation of UBHC emission with load for D-CNG combination.

a positive hydrocarbon reduction potential when enriched with

CNG. However, the UBHC emission for both the dieseleethanol
blends with CNG enrichment was higher than that of base diesel
operation. This increase may be attributed to the combined effect of
charge cooling by ethanol, which reduces the combustion temperature, and oxygen content reduction in intake air due to CNG
enrichment. These factors prevent the complete combustion of the
charge resulting in higher hydrocarbon emissions.
4.3.4. Smoke opacity
The variations of exhaust smoke opacity in relation with the
different fuel combinations used at different load conditions are
shown in Figs. 23e25. As a part of present analysis, Fig. 23 reects
that CNG enrichment of diesel reduces smoke opacity for almost all
load conditions. At 40%, load condition CNG strategy-4 showed a
smoke opacity of 13%, which is 50% less than that of by diesel at the
same load condition. At full load condition CNG, strategy-1 showed
smoke opacity of 17.4%, which is 52.72% less than that of diesel at
the same load condition.
As per the Fig. 24, it can be seen that the smoke opacity
decreased with increasing ethanol inclusion in the fuel. D95E5
showed a consistent reduction in smoke opacity with increasing
load and all of these values are signicantly lower than the smoke

opacity readings for plain diesel operation at same load conditions.

However, D90E10 showed a little increase in smoke opacity
compared to D95E5, but that was also lower than diesel operation.
This may be by virtue of fuel-bond oxygen content of ethanol. Again
the increase in opacity with increasing ethanol content suggests
that, higher ethanol content owing to its high latent heat of evaporation caused a drop in in-cylinder temperature, resulting in
reduced combustion rates and marginally higher smoke opacity.
For dieseleethanol blends with CNG enrichment as shown in
Fig. 25, it is observed that other than low load conditions, all fuel
combinations showed lower smoke opacity. It can also be seen that
on an average increase of CNG induction substantially reduces
smoke opacity in a manner similar to that of diesel. It is also
observed that D95E5 shows the best results with low CNG enrichments as it produced a decrease of 28.5% at 40% load, 49.22% at
80% load, and 62.5% in full load conditions. With higher CNG enrichments (CNG strategy 4 and 5) D95E5 showed a decrease of
20.7% at 40% load, 44.57% at 60% load and 55.4% at full load conditions. Therefore, it is evident that for D95E5 blend, increase in
CNG injection slightly increases smoke opacity. D90E10 blend with
low CNG enrichment showed a decrease of 2.31% at low load (20%
load), 40.7% at medium load (60% load) and 44.02% at high load
conditions. With high CNG injection D90E10 blend reduces smoke

Fig. 19. Variation of NOx emission with load for DE-CNG combination.

Fig. 21. Variation of UBHC emission with load for DieseleEthanol Blends.

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

799

Fig. 22. Variation of UBHC emission with load for DE-CNG combination.

Fig. 24. Variation of Smoke -opacity with load for DieseleEthanol Blends.

opacity by 21.9% at low load (20% load), 39.93% at medium load

(60% load) and 75.52% at high load (Full load) conditions. Therefore,
it is clear that increase in ethanol volume in the pilot fuel responds
better with CNG enrichment in reducing smoke opacity.

The present study deals with a comprehensive trade off analysis

carried on different load levels involving Smoke opacity, NOx and
BSFC diesel equivalent, which has been summarized between
Figs. 26e31. Thus, this study offers a scope to investigate the best
possible fuel combination at different load conditions, which will
simultaneously reduce NOx and smoke opacity at optimum fuel
consumption.
Observing the trade off graph at 20% load condition in Fig. 26,it
can be noticed that CNG enrichment of diesel has noticeably
reduced the fuel consumption of the engine as the BSFC diesel
equivalent of plain diesel (shown as 20%DCNG-0) has dropped to a
signicantly lower value (Zone-A). The NOx emission also
decreased a bit with CNG enrichment but with penalty of marginal
increase in smoke opacity. Again, it is also clearly visible that CNG
enrichment of D95E5 blend pushes the trade off zone away from
the origin to zone B, where all the parameters, NOx emission, smoke

opacity and BSFC diesel equivalent are higher in addition, as

compared to diesel. Further increase in ethanol content i.e. D90E10
at all CNG strategies, also shifted the trade off zone to higher NOx,
higher smoke opacity with high equivalent BSFC (Zone-C).
At 40% load (as shown in Fig. 27) condition also exhibits a
denitive trade off potential with simultaneous reduction in smoke
opacity, NOx and BSFC diesel equivalent with DieseleCNG combination. With increasing CNG content, the trade off zone shifted
more towards the origin (Zone-D) indicating a better performanceemission potential. For base dieseleCNG combination, best characteristic was shown by diesel enriched by CNG strategy-3 (shown
as 40%DCNG-3) with simultaneous reduction of 47.69%, 52.38% and
25.58% in smoke opacity, NOx and BSFC diesel equivalent respectably. Diesel ethanol blends D95E5 and D90E10 shifted the trade off
zone towards high NOx emission and high equivalent BSFC. However, CNG enrichment of D95E5 pulled back the trade of zone towards better smoke-NOx readings (Zone-E) with appreciable
reduction in equivalent BSFC. D95E5 with CNG strategy 5 shown as
40%DE5CNG-5 showed signicantly better performance-emission
characteristics as it pulled the trade off zone closest to the origin
(Zone D). Simultaneous increase in CNG enrichment of D90E10
gradually pulled down the NOx emission to a much lower value. On
the other hand, this also caused an increase in smoke emission with

Fig. 23. Variation of smoke opacity with load for D-CNG combination.

Fig. 25. Variation of Smoke eopacity with load for DE-CNG combination.

5. Trade off study

800

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

Fig. 26. Trade off between NOx-Smoke opacity with reference to BSFC Diesel Equivalent at 20% load condition.

Fig. 28. Trade off between NOx-Smoke opacity with reference to Diesel Equivalent at
60% load condition.

very high equivalent BSFC as it pushed the trade off zone further
away from the origin (Zone-F).
At 60% load condition, as shown in Fig. 28 the trade off potential
of CNG enrichment and ethanol substitution can be separately
observed with ease. Low CNG enrichment with diesel as the pilot
fuel shifts the trade off zone towards origin with subsequent
reduction in equivalent BSFC and smoke opacity accompanied by
very low NOx emission (Zone-H). However, higher CNG strategies
with pilot diesel injection showed higher smoke opacity with very
low equivalent BSFC and NOx emission. Diesel eethanol blend
D95E5 without any CNG enrichment showed high equivalent BSFC
that was similar to base diesel operation but with much less smoke
opacity than diesel operation. However, CNG enrichment of D95E5
showed improvement in all performance-emission parameters
considered. CNG enrichment of D95E5 produced an impressive
improvement in smoke opacity and equivalent BSFC as compared to
diesel. However, this was penalized by gradual increase in NOx
emission. On the other hand, D90E10 failed to show any promising
performance-emission trade off point as it showed the highest
NOx emission and equivalent BSFC (Pick point) among all fuel

combinations considered. With increasing CNG enrichment, NOx

emission as well as the equivalent BSFC for D90E10 blend reduced
but with penalties of increased smoke opacity. It is also worth
mentioning that D90E10 blend with CNG strategy-5, depicted as
60%DE10CNG-5 showed almost similar performance-emission
characteristics as that of diesel with CNG strategy 4.
At 80% load condition, shown in Fig. 29, CNG enrichment of
diesel signicantly reduced the equivalent BSFC and NOx emission
(zone-k). However, the smoke opacity was higher for medium to
high CNG enrichment strategies. It can also be seen that D95E5
without any CNG enrichment showed similar equivalent BSFC and
NOx emission. With CNG enrichment of the blends, NOx emission
and equivalent BSFC for D95E5 blend was reduced. It is clearly
visible from zone L of Fig. 29 that for D95E5, both NOx and equivalent BSFC reduced with increasing CNG content with marginal
increase in smoke opacity as compared to base D95E5 operation.
Among the blends, D95E5 with CNG strategy 3 depicted by 80%
DE5CNG-3 showed the one of the better characteristic with 44.74%
reduction in smoke opacity, 57.97% reduction in NOx and 27.68%
reduction in equivalent BSFC compared to diesel. The other blend,
D90E10 again showed signicantly high NOx and equivalent BSFC

Fig. 27. Trade off between NOx-Smoke opacity with reference to BSFC Diesel Equivalent at 40% load condition.

Fig. 29. Trade off between NOx-Smoke opacity with reference to BSFC Diesel Equivalent at 80% load condition.

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

Fig. 30. Trade off between NOx-Smoke opacity with reference to Diesel Equivalent at
full load condition.

readings. Here also, CNG enrichment of D90E10, especially medium

and high CNG strategies reduced all the performanceeemission
parameters pulling it closer to a batter trade off zone-L.
Full load condition emphatically shows the effect of CNG
enrichment in diesel as well as Dieseleethanol blends. As seen in
Fig. 30, CNG enrichment of diesel gradually brings down the
equivalent BSFC and NOx emission, with marginal increase in
smoke opacity (Zone-N). Diesel with CNG strategy 5 (shown as
100%DCNG-5) showed the least BSFC equivalent and NOx emission
for all fuel combinations at this load. Ethanol inclusion in pilot fuel
signicantly reduces the smoke opacity, but with the penalty of
high NOx emission, that is seen mounting with increasing ethanol
content of the fuel. D95E5 blend with CNG strategy 3 showed one of
the better trade off zones (Zone-O) as it reduced smoke opacity by
72.28%, NOx emission by 8.82% and BSFC equivalent by 24.63%
compared to diesel. However, D90E10 blend again showed a very
high NOx emission along with very high equivalent BSFC and
moderately low smoke opacity (Zone-P) .But CNG enrichment of
D90E10 drastically improved the trade off potential of the blend

Fig. 31. Trade off between NOx-Smoke opacity with reference to BSFC Diesel Equivalent at 120% load Condition.

801

with simultaneous reduction in smoke, NOx emission, as well as

equivalent BSFC.
As seen in low and medium load conditions, 120% load condition
also showed that CNG enrichment of base diesel fuel produced a
reduction in NOx emission, smoke opacity, and equivalent BSFC
(Zone-Q, Fig. 31). As seen in Fig. 31 CNG strategy 5 especially produced a signicantly good utility zone (Zone-Q) as it reduced
equivalent BSFC by 45.03%, smoke opacity by 14.95% and NOx by
61.75%. Both dieseleethanol blends, D95E5 and D90E10 shifted the
trade off zones into a high equivalent BSFC (Zone T for D95E5 and
zone U for D90E10). Not only that, D90E10 blend also produced a
455.88% rise in NOx emission and 2.79% rise in equivalent BSFC.
CNG enrichment of these dieseleethanol blends not only reduced
the NOx and smoke emission but also prominently brought down
the equivalent BSFC (Zone-R and S). The effect of CNG enrichment is
most prominently seen in D90E10 blend with CNG strategy 5,
which produced a reduction of 72.36% in smoke opacity and 62.58%
in equivalent BSFC but was partially penalized by 67.71% rise in NOx
emission (Zone-S). On an Overall perspective, Dieseleethanol
blends with CNG enrichment did brought down the trade off zone
toward better statistics.
6. Conclusions
This study provides a comprehensive assessment on CNG
enrichment of diesel and different dieseleethanol blends in terms
of their performance and emission aspects. It also provides a suggestive analysis of ethanols limited miscibility in diesel, which
restricts its use in higher percentage of volume of diesel. The tested
blends consisted of 5% and 10% by volume of ethanol. On the other
hand, CNG was port injected for 5 different injection durations
which depended on the RPM of the engine. Furthermore, the trade
off study provides a clear picture of blend usability along with CNG
enrichment at different load conditions. The vital ndings of this
study are summarized as follows,
1. Ethanol cannot be mixed in diesel in excess of 10% (V/V) at
normal room temperature. Anything above 10% results in
distinct phase separation problem. Dieseleethanol blends with
5% and 10% ethanol showed stability over a wide period. Hence,
they were perfect for engine testing.
2. The study showed that dieseleethanol blend, D95E5 produced
better performance characteristics than dieseleCNG combination when both dieseleethanol and dieseleCNG combinations
are compared with diesel. As an alternative to conventional
diesel, D95E5 and D90E10 showed higher brake thermal efciency (21.53% and 19.5% respectably) than any DieseleCNG
combination. Further, Low CNG enrichment of both diesele
ethanol blends was found to be extra benecial in increasing
Bth of the engine and was found to be an even better alternative. In terms of brake specic energy consumption, CNG with
pilot diesel clearly increased the energy intake of the engine.
Again, increasing ethanol percentage in base fuel resulted in a
reduction in BSEC. Low CNG enrichment of the blends also
reduced the energy intake of the engine.
3. The emission study of the test engine showed a higher CO
emission for the DieseleCNG combination blends than the plain
Diesel operation. DieseleEthanol blends also showed higher CO
emission but it was much lower than that of DieseleCNG combination. CNG enrichment of dieseleethanol blends further
attributed to a high CO emission. CNG enrichment also attributed to reduction in NOx and increase in unburned hydrocarbon
emissions with diesel as base fuel. Ethanol inclusion also
reduced NOx and increased UBHC emission but the effect of CNG
enrichment was more prominent in both cases. CNG enrichment

802

A. Paul et al. / Energy 55 (2013) 787e802

of dieseleethanol blends also reduced the smoke opacity of the

engine.
4. The present study also provides a denitive approach toward
determining the best fuel combination for the tested set of fuel
combinations, which will offer the best performance with
minimal amount of emissions at a particular load condition.
The trade off curves also establishes the fact that toward high
load conditions, dieseleethanol blends with low CNG enrichment are a better option than diesel operation as it brings out
good performance from the engine with sustained emissions
that are well within the standards.
This Experimentation thus revealed the potential of CNG
enrichment of diesel and dieseleethanol blends as an efcient instrument to overcome the inherent paradox of simultaneously
reducing emissions and without much penalization of performance
characteristics in conventional diesel engine.
Appendix A. Supplmentary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found online at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.04.002.
References
[1] International Energy Outlook. U.S. energy information administration 2011.
[2] Hansen AC, Lyne PWL. Ethanol-diesel blends a step towards a bio-based fuel
for diesel engines. ASAE paper 200101e6048.
[3] Li DG, Zhen H, Xingcai L, Wu-gao Z, Yang JG. Physico-chemical properties of
ethanolediesel blend fuel and its effect on performance and emissions of
diesel engines. Renewable Energy May 2005;30(6):967e76. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2004.07.010. ISSN 0960-1481.
[4] Park SH, Cha J, Kim HJ, Lee CS. Effect of early injection strategy on spray atomization and emission reduction characteristics in bioethanol blended diesel
fueled engine. Energy March 2012;39(1):375e87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2011.12.050. ISSN 0360-5442.
[5] Sukjit E, Herreros JM, Dearn KD, Garca-Contreras R, Tsolakis A. The effect of
the addition of individual methyl esters on the combustion and emissions of
ethanol and butanol -diesel blends. Energy June 2012;42(1):364e74. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.041. ISSN 0360-5442.
[6] Kannan GR, Anand R. Experimental investigation on diesel engine with
diestrolewater micro emulsions. Energy 01 February 2011. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2010.12.062.
[7] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Herreros JM. Emissions from a dieselebioethanol blend
in an automotive diesel engine. Fuel January 2008;87(1):25e31. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2007.04.007. ISSN 0016-2361.
[8] Huang JC, Wang Y, Li SD, Anthony PR, Yu HD, Li H. Experimental investigation
on the performance and emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with ethanole
diesel blends. Applied Thermal Engineering August 2009;29(11e12):2484e
90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.12.016. ISSN 1359-4311.
[9] Kwanchareon P, Luengnaruemitchai A, Jai-In S. Solubility of a dieselebiodieseleethanol blend, its fuel properties, and its emission characteristics from
diesel engine. Fuel May 2007;86(7e8):1053e61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuel.2006.09.034. ISSN 0016-2361.
[10] Ahmed I. Oxygenated diesel: emissions and performance characteristics of
ethanol-diesel blends in CI engines. SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-2475 2001.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2001-01-2475.

[11] Mohammadi A, Kee S, Ishiyama T, Kakuta T, Matsumoto T. Implementation of

ethanol diesel blend fuels in PCCI combustion. SAE Technical Paper 2005-013712 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2005-01-3712.
[12] He B, Wang J, Yan X, Tian X, Chen H. Study on combustion and emission
characteristics of diesel engines using ethanol blended diesel fuels. SAE
Technical Paper 2003-01-0762 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2003-010762.
[13] Hardenberg H, Schaefer A. The use of ethanol as a fuel for compression
ignition engines. SAE Technical Paper 811211 1981. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/
811211.
[14] zer C, elikten I_ Usta N. Effects of ethanol addition on performance and emissions of a turbocharged indirect injection DIESEL engine running at different injection pressures. Energy Conversion and Management September 2004;45(15e
16):2429e40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2003.11.024. ISSN 01968904.
[15] Yan Y, Zhang Y, Rao S, Zhang R, Wu D. Study on combustion and emission
characteristics of diesel engines fueled with ethanol/diesel blended fuel. SAE
technical paper, SAE 2009-01-2675 2009.
[16] Carlucci AP, de Risi A, Laforgia D, Naccarato F. Experimental investigation and
combustion analysis of a direct injection dual-fuel dieselenatural gas engine.
Energy 2008;33:256e63.
[17] Kalam M, Masjuki H, Mahlia T, Fuad M, Halim K, Ishak A, et al. Experimental
test of a new compressed natural gas engine with direct injection. SAE
Technical Paper 2009-01-1967 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2009-01-1967.
[18] Maji S, Pal A, Arora B. Use of CNG and diesel in CI engines in dual fuel mode.
SAE Technical Paper 2008-28-0072 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2008-280072.
[19] Shenghua L, Longbao Z, ZiyanW, Jiang R. Combustion characteristics of compressed natural gas/diesel dual-fuel turbocharged compressed ignition engine. Journal of Automobile Engineering 2003;217:833. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/095440700321700909.
[20] Kusaka J, Okamoto T, Daisho Y, Kihara R, Saito T. Combustion and exhaust gas
emission characteristics of a diesel engine dual- fueled with natural gas.
JSAE Review October 2000;21(4):489e96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S03894304(00)00071-0. ISSN 0389-4304.
[21] Papagiannakis RG, Rakopoulos CD, Hountalas DT, Rakopoulos DC. Emission
characteristics of high speed, dual fuel, compression ignition engine operating in a wide range of natural gas/diesel fuel proportions. Fuel July
2010;89(7):1397e406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2009.11.001. ISSN
0016-2361.
[22] Ahin Z, Durgun O. Prediction of the effects of ethanol-diesel fuel blends on
diesel engine performance characteristics, combustion, exhaust emissions,
and cost. Energy & Fuels 23(3): 1707e17.
[23] Bose PK, Banerjee R. An experimental investigation on the role of hydrogen in
the emission reduction and performance trade-off studies in an existing diesel
engine operating in dual fuel mode under exhaust gas recirculation. Journal of
Energy Resources Technology 2012;134(012601). http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/
1.4005246.
[24] Das LM, Gulati R, Gupta PK. A comparative evaluation of the performance
characteristics of a spark ignition engine using hydrogen and compressed
natural gas as alternative fuels. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
August 2000;25(8):783e93.
[25] Fino D, Russo N, Saracco G, Specchia V. CNG engines exhaust gas treatment via
Pd-Spinel-type-oxide catalysts. Catalysis Today 15 October 2006;117(4):559e
63.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2006.06.003. ISSN 0920-5861.
[26] Yksel F, Yksel B. The use of ethanolegasoline blend as a fuel in an SI engine.
Renewable Energy June 2004;29(7):1181e91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2003.11.012. ISSN 0960-1481.
[27] Hansen AC, Hornbaker R, Zhang H, Lyne Q. On-farm evaluation of diesel fuel
oxygenated with ethanol. ASAE Paper No. 01-6173. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
[28] Kass M, Thomas J, Storey J, Domingo N, Wade J, Kenreck G. Emissions from a
5.9 Liter diesel engine fueled with ethanol diesel blends. SAE Technical Paper
2001-01-2018 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2001-01-2018.
[29] Bittner RW, Aboujaoude FW. Catalytic control of NOx, CO and NMHC emissions from stationary diesel and dual fuel engines. Journal of Engineering for
Gas Turbines and Power July 1992;114:597e601.