Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Dwindling reserves and steeply increasing prices of the fossil-fuels, concern over climatic change due to
Received 12 October 2015 release of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and the strict environmental regulations have motivated the
Accepted 18 February 2016 researchers for the search for renewable alternative fuel that has clean burning characteristics and may
be produced indigenously. Alcohols, being oxygenated fuel improve the combustion and reduce green-
house gas emissions, thus enhancing agrarian economies and encouraging national economy as a whole.
Keywords: The objective of this paper is to investigate the thermal performance, exhaust emissions and combustion
Alternative fuels
behaviour of small capacity compression ignition engine using fumigated ethanol. Fumigated ethanol at
Ethanol fumigation
Combustion
different flow rates is supplied to the cylinder during suction with the help of a simplified low cost etha-
nol fuelling system. With ethanol fumigation, brake thermal efficiency decreased upto 11.2% at low loads
due to deteriorated combustion, whereas improved combustion increased efficiency up to 6% at higher
loads, as compared to pure diesel. Maximum reduction of 22%, 41% and 27% respectively in nitrogen
oxide, smoke and carbon-di-oxide emissions with simultaneous increase in hydrocarbon and carbon-
mono-oxide emissions upto maximum of 144% and 139% respectively for different rates of ethanol fumi-
gation have been observed, when compared to pure diesel operation. This is due to the changes in
physico-chemical properties of air fuel mixture, viz combustion temperature, oxygen concentration,
latent heat of vaporisation, fuel distribution, cetane number and ignition delay, that occurred with addi-
tion of ethanol content. The rise in peak pressure of cycle, heat release rate and ignition delay along with
decrease in combustion duration for different rates of ethanol fumigation have been observed. The
increasing fumigation levels of ethanol results in the increase of maximum rate of pressure rise by
0.3–0.5 bar/°crank angle and the crank angle after top dead centre, where peak pressure occurs, shifts
by 1–4° of crank angle. It is also observed that maximum heat release rate increases by 2–9 J/°crank angle
as compared to baseline diesel case. Coefficient of Variance of indicated mean effective pressure increases
with ethanol fumigation.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.02.055
0196-8904/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
222 D.K. Jamuwa et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 115 (2016) 221–231
Nomenclature
CI compression ignition
Symbols CO carbon monoxide
AFR stoichiometric air fuel ratio (–) CO2 carbon dioxide
_ w
Ex net exergy work rate (kJ/s) CoV Coefficient of Variance
_ in
Ex kJ/s input exergy rate °CA degree crank angle
Pb brake power (kW) HC hydrocarbons
qm mass flow rate (kg/h) HRR heat release rate
QLHV lower heating value (kJ/kg) IMEP indicated mean effective pressure
NOx nitric oxides of nitrogen
Greek symbols O2 oxygen
e specific exergy of ethanol (kJ/kg)
u chemical energy factor (–) Subscripts
w exegy efficiency (–) air air
d diesel
e ethanol
Abbreviations
aTDC after top dead centre st stoichiometric
BTE brake thermal efficiency
greater than its supply, in India has restrained its use and has com- investigated the influence of bioethanol fumigation on the perfor-
pelled to use non-edible oil. To initiate biodiesel program at large- mance, emission and combustion characteristics of single cylinder,
scale cultivation may result in decreased production of food crops. four stroke, air cooled diesel engine. Bioethanol produced by the
Therefore, in the present scenario, alcohols seem to be the most fermentation of Madhuca indica flower was used as an alternative
attractive alternate fuel from the view-point of availability, storage fuel in this investigation. Bioethanol was fumigated at four differ-
and handling. Two alcohols commonly considered for automotive ent flow rates in the suction, with the help of a vaporiser and a
application are methanol and ethanol. Methanol has certain disad- microprocessor controlled injector. The results of the combustion,
vantages, such as its low calorific value and toxic effects. performance and emissions of the engine, running with the
Ethanol is a biomass based renewable fuel that can be produced bioethanol fumigation, were compared with those of the diesel
by alcoholic fermentation of sugar from vegetable materials, such operation.
as corn, sugar cane, sugar beets, barley, sweet sorghum, cassava Sudheesh and Mallikarjuna [42] carried out experimental inves-
and molasses. It can also be produced by agricultural residues, tigations of a homogeneous charge compression ignition engine
feedstock and waste woods using modern and commercially viable using biogas as a primary fuel and diethyl ether as an ignition
technologies [15]. Complete substitution of diesel with alcohol is improver. The results obtained in this study were compared with
very difficult, but in recent years, various researchers have carried those of the available biogas–diesel dual–fuel and biogas spark
out certain investigations using the lower alcohols such as metha- ignition modes. In another study, Can et al. [43] studied the effects
nol and ethanol, employing different techniques with varying of premixed ratio of diethyl ether on the combustion and exhaust
amounts of alcohols in dual fuel mode. These techniques involves emissions of a single-cylinder, homogeneous charge compression
alcohol–diesel blends [16–28], alcohol fumigation [29–34] and ignition direct injection engine. The amount of the premixed
alcohol–diesel fuel emulsification [35]. diethyl ether was controlled by a programmable electronic control
Sahin et al. [36] investigated experimentally the effects of 2%, unit. The effect of the variation of energy ratio of premixed DEE
4%, 6%, 8% and 10% (by vol.) gasoline fumigation in a single cylinder fuel on various performance, emission and combustion parameters
direct injection (DI) Diesel engine at the speed of 900–1600 rpm was investigated and the results obtained were compared to neat
and at the selected compression ratios of 18–23. The study with diesel operation. Hou et al. [44] modified two-cylinder direct injec-
objective of comparing the effect of applying a biodiesel with tion diesel engine for a homogeneous charge compression igni-
either 10% blended methanol or 10% fumigation methanol was car- tion–direct injection engine fuelled with dimethyl ether and
ried out by Cheng et al. [37]. The biodiesel used in this study was investigated experimentally the effects of premixed ratio on vari-
converted from waste cooking oil. Experiments were performed ous combustion characteristics.
on a 4-cylinder naturally aspirated direct injection diesel engine From above, it is clear that numerous studies have been carried
operating at a constant speed of 1800 rev/min with five different out to determine performance and exhaust emission parameters of
engine loads. Zhang et al. [38] conducted the experiments on a CI engine using ethanol in fumigation mode for multi cylinder CI
four-cylinder direct-injection diesel engine with methanol or etha- engines, but only a small quantum of work has been undertaken
nol injected into the air intake of each cylinder, to compare their to study the performance, exhaust emissions and combustion char-
effect on the engine performance, gaseous emissions and particu- acteristics of small capacity single cylinder four stroke water
late emissions at various loads at the maximum torque speed of cooled CI engine fuelled with ethanol. The studies reported
1800 rev/min. In another experimental study, Zhang et al. [39] con- included expensive micro controller operated device for supply
ducted the experiments on same engine with methanol fumigation of ethanol whereas in the present study simplified low cost ethanol
to investigate performance parameters and emissions of the engine fuelling system was developed.
at engine speed of 1920 rpm. Further, Zhang et al. [40] investigated The engine used in this investigation is the most versatile
the combined application of fumigation methanol and a diesel oxi- engine that is widely used in diesel gensets in the urban areas
dation catalyst for reducing emissions of an in-use diesel engine. and to power agricultural pump-sets in rural areas. Owing to their
Experiments were performed on a 4 cylinder naturally aspirated widespread use, there is a need to explore ways of making them
direct-injection diesel engine operating at a constant speed of more efficient, less polluting, less expensive, and more eco-
1800 rev/min at various engine load. Hansdah and Murugan [41] friendly. The relevance of this study lies in the fact that it facilitates
D.K. Jamuwa et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 115 (2016) 221–231 223
Table 1 Table 2
Fuel properties. Specifications of diesel engine.
charge amplifier which after being processed are stored in its inter- Table 5
nal memory and displayed as digital data on computer, on the Physical quantities measured and their uncertainties.
trend with the relative air fuel ratio. As the engine load increases,
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Relative air fuel ratio (λ)
20
Brake Thermal Efficiency (%)
25
20 15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Load (kW) Load (kW)
Fig. 4. Variation of brake thermal efficiency with load for different ethanol Fig. 5. Variation of exergy efficiency with load for different ethanol fumigation
fumigation rates. rates.
226 D.K. Jamuwa et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 115 (2016) 221–231
600 the combustion temperature and lead to the reduction of NOx for-
e0 e1 e2 mation especially under very lean conditions. Thus, lower combus-
550 e3 e4 e5 tion temperature associated with low engine load may yield the
significant reduction in NOx emission. At high engine load, the
500
increase in ignition delay and richer mixture tend to reduce the
Exhaust Gas Temperature (°C)
150
3.2.2. Hydrocarbons and carbon mono-oxide (HC and CO)
100 Fig. 8 exhibits the increase of HC emission with different rates
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 of ethanol-fumigation. Maximum increase of 144%, 76% and 44%
Load (kW) in HC emissions were observed at low, medium and high loads
Fig. 6. Variation of exhaust temperature at various loads for different ethanol
respectively for different ethanol flow rates in comparison with
fumigation rates. pure diesel. The high latent heat of vaporisation of ethanol slow
the vaporisation as well as the mixing of fuel and air, thus leading
to deteriorated combustion and the lower combustion tempera-
increase of exhaust temperature with increase in ethanol substitu- ture. The poor combustion enhances the formation of HC and that
tion at higher loads is caused due to the increase in heat release increases with increasing ethanol fumigation rates. The HC
rates which predominates the quenching factor. increase has been found to be highest at low loads and lowest at
high loads for different ethanol fumigation modes. For e1, e2, e3,
e4 and e5, there is an increase of about 41%, 61%, 84%, 113% and
3.2. Effect of ethanol on engine-emissions 144% respectively, in HC emissions as compared to e0 at no-load
condition. At low load conditions, due to large amount of air, poor
3.2.1. Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) fuel distribution and low exhaust temperature, lean fuel–air mix-
NOx is the term coined for the emission composed of nitric ture regions has the susceptibility to escape into the exhaust thus
oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). As shown in Fig. 7, maxi- yielding higher HC emissions. No change in HC emission for e1 and
mum reduction in NOx emission of 22%, 16%, and 9% respectively, e2 whereas marginal change of about 7%, 12% and 17% respectively,
have been observed at low, medium and high loads conditions for have been found at high load conditions. With increasing loads at
all rates of ethanol flow rates as compared to e0. For e1, e2, e3, e4 different ethanol fumigation modes, HC emissions decreases, due
and e5, the decrease in NOx of about 9%, 14%, 17%, 19% and 22% to improved mixing of fuel and air and thus, the enhanced
respectively have been observed as compared to e0 at no load con- combustion.
dition. The formation of NOx in a diesel engine is dependent on the CO, another toxic gaseous emission from diesel engine results
combustion temperature, along with the concentration of oxygen either due to the deficiency of oxygen or lower in-cylinder temper-
present in the combustion process. Thus, different mechanisms ature during combustion process, inadequate to support the com-
are involved when fumigation is applied. Due to its higher latent bustion. As shown in Fig. 9, CO emissions decreased up to certain
heat of evaporation of ethanol, ethanol-substitution could reduce load and then again increased with the increasing loads. It is
explained by the fact that improved combustion with increasing
2000
e0 e1 e2
160
1800 e3 e4 e5 e0 e1 e2
1600 140 e3 e4 e5
1400 120
NOx (ppm)
1200
100
HC (ppm)
1000
80
800
60
600
40
400
200 20
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Load (kW) Load (kW)
Fig. 7. Variation of NOx with load for different ethanol fumigation rates. Fig. 8. Variation of HC with load for different ethanol fumigation rates.
D.K. Jamuwa et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 115 (2016) 221–231 227
0.08 It happens due to the fact that the large latent heat of vaporisation
e0 e1 e2 of ethanol reduces in-cylinder temperature thus leading to incom-
e3 e4 e5
0.07 plete oxidation of hydrocarbons into CO, during expansion stroke
thus decreasing CO2. In comparison to e0, CO2 emissions decreased
0.06 by 7%, 12%, 16%, 19% and 24% respectively, for e1, e2, e3, e4 and e5
respectively e0 at no-load condition. At low engine load, the cool-
CO (% by vol.)
0.05 ing effect, together with the leaner air–alcohol mixture, results in
poorer combustion and hence decrease of CO2 emissions is evident,
0.04 as reflected in the poorer BTE. At high engine load, decrease of 13%,
16%, 19%, 21% and 25% respectively have been observed in CO2 for
0.03 e1, e2, e3, e4 and e5 as compared to e0, which is attributed to the
reduced air/fuel ratio and poor mixing further decreases the CO2
0.02 emissions.
0.01
3.2.4. Smoke opacity
0 Smoke might result due to engine design factors, such as fuel
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
used, engine rating, injection system characteristics, induction-
Load (kW) system and governor control. Smoke opacity is an indirect indica-
Fig. 9. Variation of CO with load for different ethanol fumigation rates.
tor of soot content in the exhaust gases. Smoke-meter quantifies
the visible black smoke emission utilizing the physical phe-
nomenon as extinction of a light beam by scattering and
load results into decreased values of CO up to a particular load. But absorption.
at a certain higher load condition, CO exhibit increasing trend due As shown in Fig. 11, smoke opacity, in general increases with
to rich mixture leading to poor mixing. Maximum increase of 21%, the increase in engine load at pure diesel as well as for various
56%, 83%, 106% and 139% in CO emissions respectively for e1, e2, ethanol fumigation modes. Normally, the delay period decreases
e3, e4 and e5 have been observed as compared to e0. CO emission with increasing load on CI engine. At the engine start conditions,
for different ethanol flow rates is found to increase up to 66%, 126% however, the delay increases due to the large drop in mixture tem-
and 139% respectively at low, medium and high loads in compar- perature associated with evaporating and heating the fuel. As load
ison with baseline diesel case. Increase of CO emission with is increased, the charge temperature at injection increases thus
increasing ethanol substitution is attributed to the combustion shortening the ignition delay. This shortening of delay period inhi-
quenching due to high latent heat of vaporisation and subsequent bits thermal cracking which is responsible for soot formation.
charge cooling leading to incomplete combustion. Moreover, the With fumigated ethanol, smoke opacity have been found to
low cetane number renders the fraction of ethanol trapped in cre- decrease for the entire load range. However, the reduction in
vices, non-ignitable during the expansion stroke thus increasing smoke was more obvious at high loads. For e1, e2, e3, e4 and e5
CO emissions, especially at low loads. At high engine load, the respectively, decrease in smoke opacity of about 11%, 12%, 15%,
reduced air/fuel ratio associated with poor mixing, leads to higher 16% and 20% have been observed as compared to e0 at no-load con-
CO emission. dition, whereas corresponding reduction at full load are 18%, 23%,
28%, 33% and 37%. The reduction of smoke emission, with ethanol
3.2.3. Carbon di-oxide (CO2) fumigation modes is explained by several reasons. Firstly, the
CO2 is a major contributor to global warming at higher concen- increase in ignition delay increases the amount of diesel fuel
trations. As shown in Fig. 10, the CO2 concentration increases with burned in the premixed mode, which reduces the amount of diesel
the engine load for pure diesel as well as for different ethanol fumi- fuel burned in the diffusion mode. Secondly, increasing the flow
gation modes because of enhanced combustion due to availability rate of ethanol not only reduces amount of diesel fuel for a given
of more oxygen and higher in-cylinder temperature. As evident, engine load when compared with pure diesel operation, but also
CO2 concentration decreases with increase in ethanol substitution. leads to reduction of aromatics so as to reduce smoke.
11 60
e0 e1 e2 e0 e1 e2
10 e3 e4 e5
e3 e4 e5 50
9
Smoke Opacity (% in HSU)
8 40
CO2 (% by vol.)
7
30
6
5 20
4
10
3
2
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Load (kW) Load (kW)
Fig. 10. Variation of CO2 with load for different ethanol fumigation rates. Fig. 11. Variation of smoke opacity with load for different ethanol fumigation rates.
228 D.K. Jamuwa et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 115 (2016) 221–231
70
e0 e1 70
e2 e3
60
e4 e5
65
Peak Cylinder pressure (bar)
50
60
Pressure (bar)
40
55
30
50
20
10 45
e0 e1 e2
e3 e4 e5
0 40
310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Crank angle (deg) Load (kW)
Fig. 12. Variation in cylinder pressure with crank angle at full load. Fig. 14. Variation in peak cylinder pressure with load and fumigation rates.
D.K. Jamuwa et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 115 (2016) 221–231 229
4
3.3.3. Heat release rate (HRR)
CoV of IMEP
60 e3 e4 e5
Rate of heat release (J/ deg CA)
1,200
50
1,000
40
800
30
600
20
400 10
200 0
0 -10
360 370 380 390 400 340 360 380 400 420 440
Crank angle (deg) Crank angle (deg)
Fig. 16. Variation in cylinder gas temperature with crank angle at full load. Fig. 17. Variation in heat release rate with crank angle at full load.
230 D.K. Jamuwa et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 115 (2016) 221–231
25
The various ethanol energy fumigation modes results into max-
20 imum reduction of 22% in NOx emission, 27% in CO2 emission and
41% in smoke opacity. The different ethanol fumigation modes can
15 yield the increase of 144% and 133% in HC and CO emissions,
respectively. Simultaneous reduction of NOx, smoke and CO2
10 whereas increase in HC and CO has been observed with increasing
rate of fumigation. Therefore, it is feasible to operate ethanol
5
fuelled CI engine in dual fuel mode for better performance and
0 emission characteristics as compared to baseline diesel case.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 At full load, the values of peak pressure and peak HRR respec-
Ethanol flow rate (kg/hr) tively, increases from 62.1 bar and 52 J/deg °CA (pure diesel) to
65.3 bar and 60.8 J/deg °CA (for ethanol flow rate of 0.5 kg/h). The
Fig. 18. Variation of burn duration with ethanol content at full load. maximum increase in ignition delay of about 3 °CA whereas
D.K. Jamuwa et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 115 (2016) 221–231 231
maximum decrease in combustion duration of about 5 °CA were [19] Kim H, Choi B. Effect of ethanol–diesel blend fuels on emission and particle
size distribution in a common-rail direct injection diesel engine with warmup
observed for different ethanol modes as compared to baseline die-
catalytic converter. Renew Energy 2008;33:2222–8.
sel case. With the induction of ethanol in CI engine, increased rate [20] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Kakaras EC, Giakoumis EG. Effects of ethanol–
of heat release and increased peak pressure increases thus enhanc- diesel fuel blends on the performance and exhaust emissions of heavy duty DI
ing the thermal efficiency. The premixed burn duration decreases diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49:3155–62.
[21] Xing-cai L, Jian-guang Y, Wu-gao Z, Zhen H. Effect of cetane number improver
with increasing ethanol substitution, thus indicating the fast burn- on heat release rate and emissions of high speed diesel engine fueled with
ing of the premixed charge and consequently increasing indicated ethanol–diesel blend fuel. Fuel 2004;83:2013–20.
mean effective pressure and thermal efficiency. The stable opera- [22] Huang J, Wang Y, Li Shuangding, Anthony PR, Yu Hongdong, Li Huifen.
Experimental investigation on the performance and emissions of a diesel
tion of engine limits the maximum usable ethanol flow rate at a engine fuelled with ethanol–diesel blends. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:2484–90.
given operating condition. [23] Murayama T, Miyamoto N, Yamada T, Kawashima J. A study on diesel-engines
Cycle to cycle variations were very small with the diesel fuel with alcohol fuels (engine performance with ethanol–castor oil fuel blends).
Bull JSME 1983;26(216):1043–9.
alone. Distinct engine cycle variations as indicated by higher value [24] Weidmann K, Menrad H. Fleet test, performance and emissions of diesel
of CoV of IMEP were evident with various ethanol flow rates. engines using different alcohol–dieselfuel blends. SAE 841331; 1984.
Increasing values of CoV render the operation of engine rough [25] Hansen AC, Taylor PW, Lyne L, Meiring P. Heat release in the compression-
ignition combustion of ethanol. Trans ASAE 1989;5:1507–11.
and unstable with larger combustion variability. [26] Czerwinski J. Performance of HD-DI-diesel engine with addition of ethanol and
rapeseed oil. SAE 940545; 1994.
[27] Ali Y, Hanna MA, Borg JE. Effect of alternative diesel fuels on heat release
Acknowledgements curves for Cummins N14–410 diesel engine. Trans ASAE 1996;2:407–14.
[28] Ajav EA, Singh B, Bhattacharya TK. Experimental study of some performance
parameters of a constant speed stationary diesel engine using ethanol–diesel
The authors are grateful to the All India Council of Technical blends as fuel. Biomass Bioenergy 1999;17(4):357–65.
Education, New Delhi, India (Ref. No. 8023/RID/ [29] Abu-Qudais M, Haddad O, Qudaisat M. The effect of alcohol fumigation on
RPS/040/11/12,1604) and Department of Science and Technology, diesel engine performance and emissions. Energy Convers Manage
2000;41:389–99.
Rajasthan, India (Ref. No. F 7(3)DST/R&D/2013/4378) for providing [30] Ajav EA, Singh B, Bhattacharya TK. Thermal balance of a single cylinder diesel
financial assistance. engine operating on alternative fuels. Energy Convers Manage
2000;41:1533–41.
[31] Gao X, Borman G, Foster D, Ye Z. Ignition delay and heat release analysis of an
ethanol fumigated turbocharged diesel-engine. In: 6th Annual energy sources
References technology and exhibit ASME; 1983 [83-DGP-1].
[32] Walker JT. Diesel tractor engine performance as affected by ethanol
[1] Kouremenos DA, Rakopoulos CD, Kotsiopoulos PN. Comparative performance fumigation. Trans ASAE 1984;27(1):49.
and emission studies for vaporized diesel fuel and gasoline as supplements in [33] Shropshire GJ, Bashford LL. Comparison of ethanol fumigation systems for a
swirl-chamber diesel engines. Energy 1990;15:1153–60. diesel engine. Agric Eng (USA) 1987;65(5):17–24.
[2] Rakopoulos CD, Kyritsis DC. Comparative second-law analysis of internal [34] Chaplin J, Janius RB. Ethanol fumigation of a compression-ignition engine
combustion engine operation for methane, methanol and dodecane fuels. using advanced injection of diesel fuel. Trans ASAE 1987;30(3):610–4.
Energy 2001;26:705–22. [35] Fahd MEA, Wenming Y, Lee PS, Chou SK, Yap CR. Experimental investigation of
[3] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Rakopoulos DC. Experimental heat release the performance and emission characteristics of direct injection diesel engine
analysis and emissions of a HSDI diesel engine fueled with ethanol–diesel fuel by water emulsion diesel under varying engine load condition. Appl Energy
blends. Energy 2007;32:1791–808. 2013;102:1042–9.
[4] Galadima A, Muraza O. Waste to liquid fuels: potency, progress and challenges. [36] Sahin Z, Durgun O, Bayram C. Experimental investigation of gasoline
Int J Energy Res 2015;39(11):1451–78. fumigation in a single cylinder direct tinjection diesel engine. Energy
[5] Abdel-Rahman AA. On the emissions from internal-combustion engines: a 2008;33:1298–310.
review. Int J Energy Res 1998;22(6):483–513. [37] Cheng CH, Cheung CS, Chan TL, Lee SC, Yao CD, Tsang KS. Comparison of
[6] Turner J, Sverdrup G, Mann MK, Maness PC, Kroposki B, Ghirardi M, et al. emissions of a direct injection diesel engine operating on biodiesel with
Renewable hydrogen production. Int J Energy Res 2008;32(5):379–407. http:// emulsified and fumigated methanol. Fuel 2008;87:1870–9.
dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1372. [38] Zhang ZH, Tsang KS, Cheung CS, Chan TL, Yao CD. Effect of fumigation
[7] Saravanan N, Nagarajan G. Experimental investigation on a DI dual fuel engine methanol and ethanol on the gaseous and particulate emissions of a direct
with hydrogen injection. Int J Energy Res 2009;33(3):295–308. injection diesel engine. Atmos Environ 2011;45:2001–8.
[8] Heywood JB. Internal combustion engine fundamental. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill; [39] Zhang ZH, Cheung CS, Chan TL, Yao CD. Experimental investigation of
2003. regulated and unregulated emissions from a diesel engine fuelled with Euro
[9] Gravalos I, Gialamas T, Koutsofitis Z, Kateris D, Xyradakis P, Tsiropoulos Z, et al. V diesel fuel and fumigation methanol. Atmos Environ 2010;44:1054–61.
Comparison of performance characteristics of agricultural tractor diesel engine [40] Zhang ZH, Cheung CS, Chan TL, Yao CD. Emission reduction from diesel engine
operating on home and industrially produced biodiesel. Int J Energy Res using fumigation methanol and diesel oxidation catalyst. Sci Total Environ
2009;33(12):1048–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1533. 2009;407:4497–505.
[10] Venkanna BK, Reddy CV. Direct injection diesel engine performance, emission, [41] Hansdah D, Murugan S. Bioethanol fumigation in a DI diesel engine. Fuel
and combustion characteristics using diesel fuel, nonedible honne oil methyl 2014;130:324–33.
ester, and blends with diesel fuel. Int J Energy Res 2012;36(13):1247–61. [42] Sudheesh K, Mallikarjuna JM. Diethyl ether as an ignition improver for biogas
[11] Mythili R, Venkatachalam P, Subramanian P, Uma D. Production homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) operation – an
characterization and efficiency of biodiesel: a review. Int J Energy Res experimental investigation. Energy 2010;35:3614–22.
2014;38(10):1233–59. [43] Can C, Can Ö, Sahin F, Yucesu HS. Effects of premixed diethyl ether (DEE) on
[12] El-Adawy M, Ibrahim Amr, El-Kassaby MM. An experimental evaluation of combustion and exhaust emissions in a HCCI-DI diesel engine. Appl Therm Eng
using waste cooking oil biodiesel in a diesel engine. Energy Technol 2013;1 2010;30:360–5.
(12):726–34. [44] Hou J, Wen Z, Jiang Z, Liu Y. Effects of premixed ratio on combustion
[13] Agarwal AK. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal characteristics of a homogeneous charge compression ignition-direct injection
combustion engines. Prog Energy Combust 2007;33:233–71. engine fuelled with dimethyl ether. J Renew Sustain Energy 2014;6(1):013106.
[14] Balat M, Balat H. A critical review of bio-diesel as a vehicular fuel. Energy [45] Holman JP. Experimental methods for engineers. 7th ed. Mc Graw-Hill; 2007.
Convers Manage 2008;49:2727–41. [46] Caliskan H, Hepbasli A. A review on exergetic analysis and assessment of
[15] Demirbas A. A realistic fuel alternative for diesel engines. Springer; 2008. various types of engines. Int J Exergy 2010;7(3):287–310.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-995-8. [47] Morsy MH. Assessement of a direct injection fumigated engine fumigated with
[16] He B, Shuai S, Wang J, He H. The effect of ethanol blended diesel fuels on ethanol/water mixture. Energy Convers Manage 2015;94:406–14.
emissions from a diesel engine. Atmos Environ 2003;37:4965–71. [48] Kotas TJ. The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. Paragon Publishing;
[17] Bilgin A, Durgun O, Sahin Z. The effects of diesel–ethanol blends on diesel 2012.
engine performance. Energy Source 2002;24:431–40. [49] Wray AP, Ibrahim SS, Carrotte JF. Engineering thermodynamics. Departmental
[18] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Herreros JM. Emissions from a diesel–bioethanol blend Publication No. 18, AAE Department, Loughborough University; 1997.
in an automotive diesel engine. Fuel 2008;87:25–31.