Next Article in Journal
Cost-Economic Analysis of Hydrogen for China’s Fuel Cell Transportation Field
Next Article in Special Issue
Identification of the Effects of Fire-Wave Propagation through the Power Unit’s Boiler Island
Previous Article in Journal
Surfactant-Polymer Interactions in a Combined Enhanced Oil Recovery Flooding
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Review on Liquefied Natural Gas as Fuels for Dual Fuel Engines: Opportunities, Challenges and Responses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 13
Issue 24
10.3390/en13246521
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Assessment of Spray Behavior, Combustion and Engine Performance of ABE-Biodiesel/Diesel as Fuel in DI Diesel Engine

by
Sattar Jabbar Murad Algayyim
1,2,3,* and
Andrew P. Wandel
2
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Al-Qadisiyah, Al-Diwaniyah 58001, Iraq
2
School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba 4350, Australia
3
Al-Diwaniyah Water Department, Al-Diwaniyah Governorate, Al-Diwaniyah 58001, Iraq
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2020, 13(24), 6521; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246521
Submission received: 22 November 2020 / Revised: 4 December 2020 / Accepted: 7 December 2020 / Published: 10 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Combustion Systems and Their Impact)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of an acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) mixture on spray parameters, engine performance and emission levels of neat cottonseed biodiesel and neat diesel blends. The spray test was carried out using a high-speed camera, and the engine test was conducted on a variable compression diesel engine. Adding an ABE blend can increase the spray penetration of both neat biodiesel and diesel due to the low viscosity and surface tension, thereby enhancing the vaporization rate and combustion efficiency. A maximum in-cylinder pressure value was recorded for the ABE-diesel blend. The brake power (BP) of all ABE blends was slightly reduced due to the low heating values of ABE blends. Exhaust gas temperature (EGT), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions were also reduced with the addition of the ABE blend to neat diesel and biodiesel by 14–17%, 11–13% and 25–54%, respectively, compared to neat diesel. Unburnt hydrocarbon (UHC) emissions were reduced with the addition of ABE to diesel by 13%, while UHC emissions were increased with the addition of ABE to biodiesel blend by 25–34% compared to neat diesel. It can be concluded that the ABE mixture is a good additive blend to neat diesel rather than neat biodiesel for improving diesel properties by using green energy for compression ignition (CI) engines with no or minor modifications.

1. Introduction

The rapid depletion of fossil fuel reserves, population growth and the increase in air pollution from internal combustion engines using fossil fuels have motivated the search for an alternative biofuel such as biodiesel and alcohol [1,2]. Acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE), a butanol intermediate product fermentation, has shown potential as an additive fuel blend for conventional diesel due to a reduction in the recovery cost requirements of butanol separation [3,4,5]. Another benefit of using ABE is that it is produced from renewable sources such as agricultural waste [6,7,8]. Furthermore, a variety of biomass types can be used as a source of ABE fermentation [3].
The ABE blend has attracted researchers’ attention because it is a renewable fuel that reduces dependence on fossil fuels and decreases diesel engine emissions [9,10]. Researchers have experimentally tested ABE mixtures with several investigations [11,12] assessing ABE blend performance under different operating conditions. Luo et al. [13] investigated the sooting tendency of ABE fuels blended with diesel. They found that ABE-diesel has a lower sooting tendency than the butanol-diesel blend because it possesses higher oxygen content and lower carbon content for the same blend ratio. Ma et al. [14] tested droplet evaporation of an ABE blend. The ABE mixture addition enhanced the droplet evaporation speed, and thus reduced the droplet lifetime. Therefore, droplet clouds have a significant impact on the propagation of turbulent flame. The pre-evaporation rate and droplet size are important parameters in controlling burning velocity. Droplet size and the overall number of droplets also have a substantial impact on ignition success, so the high evaporation rate resulting from the additions of an ABE mixture could improve combustion rates [15]. Recently, a study [16] investigated the impact of a butanol-acetone (BA) mixture as an additive for biodiesel fuel on spray and combustion characteristics. The experimental results revealed that all BA mixtures enhanced spray penetration, offered some improvement in brake power and reduced emission levels (UHC, CO and NOx). The abovementioned studies support the advantages of using ABE in compression ignition (CI) engines [3,17,18]. Recent research by the authors [5] has also investigated ABE-diesel blends and found that the studied ABE blend reduced exhaust emissions.
To the best of our knowledge, comparative assessment of the ABE mixture as an additive to neat biodiesel (cottonseed) and neat diesel, and the related spray characteristics and engine performance, have not been fully studied. The main goal of this paper is to evaluate and compare the macroscopic spray parameters and engine performance of 10% ABE blended with neat biodiesel and diesel as fuel in a direct injection (DI) diesel engine.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Fuel Preparation

Cottonseed biodiesel was prepared from cottonseed oil via transesterification. The fatty acid compositions of the cottonseed biodiesel (chemical profiles) were determined using Flame Ionization Detector-Equipped Gas Chromatography (FID-GC) [19]. The analytical grades of normal butanol (nB) and acetone (A) were used with 99.8% purity, and ethanol was used with 100% purity. All alcohol blends were obtained from Chem-Supply Australia. The ABE blend was mixed with a ratio of A:B:E (3:6:1) by volume and used to simulate ABE fermentation [3]. ABE (10%) was blended with 90% neat cottonseed biodiesel (Bd), which is referred to as ABE10Bd90. ABE (10%) was also blended with 90% neat diesel (D) creating ABE10D90. Blend density was measured according to ASTM 1298 [20,21]. The blends’ dynamic viscosities were measured according to the ASTM 445-01 [22] using a Brookfield Viscometer (DV-II+Pro Extra, AMETEK Brookfield, Middleboro, MA, USA). The kinematic viscosity was then calculated [23]. The blends’ calorific values were measured using a digital oxygen bomb calorimeter (XRY-1A, Shanghai Changji Geological Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) following ASTM D240 [24,25]. The properties of the neat fuel are listed in Table 1, and the measured blends’ properties are presented in Figure 1.

2.2. Spray Test Setup

The spray test was conducted at atmospheric condition. The setup was consistent with those described in previous work [4,16,20]. Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of the spray setup system. The spray images were captured using a Photron SA3 high-speed camera. The injector driver specifications, injection setup and camera specification are presented Table 2. Image processing methods were the same as those employed in [4,16,20,26] using the MATLAB (2015R, The MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA) program.

2.3. Engine Test Setup

The engine test consisted of a single-cylinder diesel engine, and a Coda gas analyzer used to measure emissions (Figure 3). Table 3 contains the engine specifications. The engine equipment and the Coda gas analyzer’s accuracy ranges were used as described in previous work [16,25]. Specific fuel consumption (SFC) for each fuel test was measured using a flow rate meter because of the differences in density and heating values. Therefore, for each engine run, the test blend properties were included to measure the amount of fuel injected. Brake thermal efficiency (BTE) was calculated from the measured data.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Spray Characteristics

Spray images of the test fuels are displayed in Figure 4. These images are a sample of three images recorded in the test. The results are presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Spray tip penetration (S) and spray cone angle (ѳ) were averaged from three images and six plumes.
Spray tip penetration of test fuel blends under different injection conditions is presented in Figure 5 Spray penetration was improved for all ABE test blends because of the low surface tension and viscosity of the ABE blends. The spray penetration of ABE-Bd and ABE-D blends increased, respectively, by 3–5% and 4–5% compared to neat biodiesel and diesel. The low viscosity and boiling point of alcohol can result in improved atomization and evaporation behavior of diesel and biodiesel [26,27]. Therefore, the reaction rate increased. Compared to other test fuels, the spray penetration of biodiesel was clearly shown to be lower due to its high viscosity [26]. Engine power reduction and fuel consumption increments may have occurred because of lower penetration and poorer atomization.
The spray cone angle of test blends is presented in Figure 6 under different times after start of injection (ASOI). The increase in injection pressure leads to a slight widening of the spray cone angle. However, the biodiesel fuel presented the maximum spray cone angle due to its high viscosity. In general, at 300 bar injection pressure, the spray cone angle of ABE-D/Bd blends increased at ASOI up to 0.75 ms, while the spray cone angle of neat biodiesel was higher at ASOI 0.5 ms. This result is consistent with the findings of previous work [16,26,27].

3.2. Engine Performance

3.2.1. Maximum in-Cylinder Pressure

Figure 7 presents the relationship between the maximum in-cylinder pressure trace of the test fuels. The ABE10D90 blend gave a maximum peak of in-cylinder pressure at 5 bars higher than neat diesel due to the high oxygen content and low cetane number (CN) of the ABE blend. This resulted in increased ignition time and rapid in-cylinder pressure. However, an increase in the engine speed resulted in reduced in-cylinder pressure by about 10 bars. In-cylinder pressure was improved with the addition of ABE to the biodiesel blend. Spray and combustion characteristics enhanced the ABE-biodiesel blend due to a reduction in biodiesel viscosity.

3.2.2. BP and BTE

The engine was connected to an electrical dynamometer, which was used to measure engine brake power output (BP) at various engine speeds. Brake thermal efficiency (BTE) is the ratio between the brake powers of the engine and the fuel energy supplied to the engine.
Figure 8 shows the variation of BP with engine speed according to test fuel. Both the neat biodiesel (Bd) and ABE-Bd blend revealed a lower value of BP due to low heating values (Table 1 and Figure 1). ABE-D/Bd blends had a higher combustion efficiency because of their high oxygen content, which improved the combustion rate when used as an additive blend. Algayyim et al. [6] investigated the effect of BA-diesel blends in a diesel engine. The experimental results showed that BTE increased because of the addition of BA to the diesel blend. These increments in BTE were achieved because of increased oxygen content in the blend (Figure 9). Oxygen helped to improve combustion efficiency, particularly during the diffusion combustion phase. Another factor influencing the BTE was the cetane number. ABE-diesel/biodiesel fuel blends have a lower cetane number than diesel and biodiesel, causing longer ignition delay, and a wider range in the fraction of fuel burned in the premixed mode, which elevates BTE [23,24,25].

3.2.3. EGT and NOx Formation

Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the relationship between the EGT and NOx emissions of the test fuels at various engine speeds. The ABE-Bd blend showed a significant reduction in EGT compared to neat biodiesel at all engine speeds. Neat biodiesel showed higher NOx emissions compared to conventional diesel (Figure 11) due to the high combustion temperature associated with biodiesel reaction [28,29,30]. Adding a blend such as acetone, butanol and ethanol creates lower boiling points, which result in an increased evaporation rate and combustion efficiency. Therefore, EGT will be reduced. EGT and NOx emissions were reduced with the ABE blend to neat diesel and biodiesel by 14–17% and 11–13%, respectively. This result agrees with other work [30,31,32,33,34,35].

3.2.4. UHC, CO and CO2 Emissions

The use of the ABE-D blend decreased UHC emissions compared to neat diesel at medium and high engine speeds (Figure 12). This reduction occurred because the boiling point of the ABE blend was low, which improved the vaporization rate and promoted combustion performance. The difference in droplet lifetime between ABE (3.25 s/mm2) and diesel (3.75 s/mm2) affected the reaction time of ABE blends at 823 K, which resulted in increased mixing time and led to complete reaction resulting in decreased UHC emissions [7]. ABE-biodiesel blends increased the UHC emissions due to the high oxygen atom (biodiesel and ABE), which altered the electronic structure. Almost all the C-H bonds of the ABE-Bd blend are less active for reaction compared to hydrocarbon fuels (fossil fuels), which means more time is required to complete the reaction and increases UHC emissions [36,37]. UHC emissions were reduced by 13% when ABE was added to diesel. However, UHC emissions were increased by 25–34% when ABE was added to biodiesel blends. All neat biodiesel and ABE-biodiesel/diesel blends presented lower CO emissions at all engine speeds due to the high oxygen content (Figure 13). This result agrees with previous work [34,35,36,37]. Moreover, the oxygen content of ABE-Bd blend was higher than biodiesel resulting in a significant reduction in CO emissions compared to neat biodiesel and ABE-diesel blends. CO2 emissions were slightly increased of ABE10Bd90 blends (Figure 14). It is clear that ABE0-D and ABE-Bd blends produced less CO emissions compared to diesel due to the lower carbon-to-hydrogen ratio [31,33,37].

4. Conclusions

ABE mixture can increase the spray penetration of neat diesel and biodiesel resulting in improved atomization. The ABE10D90 blend gives a maximum in-cylinder pressure value 5 bars higher than neat diesel. The Bd and ABE-Bd blends gave a lower value of BP due to the low heating values. EGT, NOx and CO emissions were significantly reduced with the addition of the ABE blend to both neat diesel and biodiesel. UHC emissions were reduced when ABE was added to diesel. However, UHC emissions were increased when ABE was added to biodiesel. Thus, it can be concluded that the ABE mixture could be a good additive blend for neat diesel rather than neat biodiesel for improving diesel properties by using green energy for CI engines with no or minor modifications.

Author Contributions

S.J.M.A. and A.P.W. conceived and designed the experiments; S.J.M.A. performed the experiments; S.J.M.A. and A.P.W. analyzed the data. S.J.M.A. wrote the paper; A.P.W. provided editorial contribution and guidance. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The first author thanks the Iraqi Governments’ Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research for supporting the research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Milazzo, M.F.; Spina, F. The use of the risk assessment in the life cycle assessment framework: Human health impacts of a soy-biodiesel production. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2015, 26, 389–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nanaki, E.A.; Koroneos, C.J. Comparative LCA of the use of biodiesel, diesel and gasoline for transportation. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 20, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Algayyim, S.J.M.; Wandel, A.P.; Yusaf, T.; Hamawand, I. Production, and application of ABE as a biofuel. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 1195–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Algayyim, S.J.M.; Wandel, A.P.; Yusaf, T.; Hamawand, I. The impact of n-butanol and iso-butanol as components of butanol-acetone (BA) mixture-diesel blend on spray, combustion characteristics, engine performance and emission in direct injection diesel engine. Energy 2017, 140, 1074–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Algayyim, S.J.M.; Wandel, A.P. Comparative study of engine performance and emissions of butanol, acetone-butanol-ethanol, butanol-acetone/diesel blends. Biofuels 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Algayyim, S.J.M.; Wandel, A.P.; Yusaf, T.; Al-Lwayzy, S.; Hamawand, I. Impact of butanol-acetone mixture as a fuel additive on diesel engine performance and emissions. Fuel 2018, 227, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lee, T.H.; Lin, Y.; Wu, H.; Meng, L.; Hansen, A.; Lee, C.-F. Characterization Spray and Combustion Processes of Acetone-Butanol-Ethanol (ABE) in a Constant Volume Chamber; SAE Technical Paper; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lin, Y.; Wu, H.; Nithyanandan, K.; Lee, T.H.; Chia-fon, F.L.; Zhang, C. Investigation of High Percentage Acetone-Butanol-Ethanol (ABE) Blended with Diesel in a Constant Volume Chamber. In Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Internal Combustion Engine Division Fall Technical Conference, New York, NY, USA, 9 December 2014; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhang, S.; Xu, Z.; Lee, T.; Lin, Y.; Wu, W.; Lee, C.-F. A Semi-Detailed Chemical Kinetic Mechanism of Acetone-Butanol-Ethanol (ABE) and Diesel Blends for Combustion Simulations. SAE Int. J. Engines 2016, 9, 631–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wu, H.; Nithyanandan, K.; Zhou, N.; Lee, T.H.; Lee, C.-F.F.; Zhang, C. Impacts of acetone on the spray combustion of Acetone–Butanol–Ethanol (ABE)-Diesel blends under low ambient temperature. Fuel 2015, 142, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wu, H.; Nithyanandan, K.; Lee, T.H.; Lee, C.-F.F.; Zhang, C. Spray and combustion characteristics of neat acetone-butanol-ethanol, n-butanol, and diesel in a constant volume chamber. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 6380–6391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhou, N.; Huo, M.; Wu, H.; Nithyanandan, K.; Lee, C.-F.F.; Wang, Q. Low temperature spray combustion of acetone–butanol–ethanol (ABE) and diesel blends. Appl. Energy 2014, 117, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Luo, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, J.; Wang, J. Evaluation of sooting tendency of acetone–butanol–ethanol (ABE) fuels blended with diesel fuel. Fuel 2017, 209, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ma, X.; Zhang, F.; Han, K.; Yang, B.; Song, G. Evaporation characteristics of acetone–butanol–ethanol and diesel blends droplets at high ambient temperatures. Fuel 2015, 160, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wandel, A.P.; Chakraborty, N.; Mastorakos, E. Direct numerical simulations of turbulent flame expansion in fine sprays. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2009, 32, 2283–2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Algayyim, S.J.M.; Wandel, A.P.; Yusaf, T.; Al-Lwayzy, S. Butanol–acetone mixture blended with cottonseed biodiesel: Spray characteristics evolution, combustion characteristics, engine performance and emission. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2019, 37, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xu, Z.; Duan, X.; Liu, Y.; Deng, B.; Liu, J. Spray combustion and soot formation characteristics of the acetone-butanol-ethanol/diesel blends under diesel engine-relevant conditions. Fuel 2020, 280, 118483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, Y.; Tang, W.; Abubakar, S.; Wu, G. Construction of a compact skeletal mechanism for acetone–n–butanol–ethanol (ABE)/diesel blends combustion in engines using a decoupling methodology. Process. Fuel Technol. 2020, 209, 106526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Venkatesan, H.; John, J.G.; Sivamani, S. Impact of oxygenated cottonseed biodiesel on combustion, performance, and emission parameters in a direct injection CI engine. Int. J. Ambient Energy 2017, 40, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Algayyim, S.; Wandel, A.P.; Yusaf, T. The Impact of Injector Hole Diameter on Spray Behaviour for Butanol-Diesel Blends. Energies 2018, 11, 1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Delacourt, E.; Desmet, B.; Besson, B. Characterisation of very high-pressure diesel sprays using digital imaging techniques. Fuel 2005, 84, 859–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yu, W.; Yang, W.; Mohan, B.; Tay, K.L.; Zhao, F. Macroscopic spray characteristics of wide distillation fuel (WDF). Appl. Energy 2017, 185, 1372–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Al-lwayzy, S.H.; Yusaf, T. Diesel engine performance and exhaust gas emissions using Microalgae Chlorella protothecoides biodiesel. Renew. Energy 2017, 101, 690–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zaharin, M.S.M.; Abdullah, N.R.; Najafi, G.; Sharudin, H.; Yusaf, T. Effects of physicochemical properties of biodiesel fuel blends with alcohol on diesel engine performance and exhaust emissions: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 475–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Algayyim, S.J.M.; Wandel, A.P.; Yusaf, T. The effect of Butanol-Acetone Mixture-Cottonseed Biodiesel Blend on Spray Characteristics, Engine Performance and Emissions in Diesel Engine. In Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific Conference on Combustion, New South Welsh, Australia, 10–14 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
  26. Suh, H.K.; Lee, C.S. A review on atomization and exhaust emissions of a biodiesel-fueled compression ignition engine. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 1601–1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Algayyim, S.J.M.; Wandel, A.P.; Yusaf, T. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Spray Characteristics of Butanol-Diesel blends. In Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific Conference on Combustion, New South Welsh, Australia, 10–14 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
  28. Xue, J.; Grift, T.E.; Hansen, A.C. Effect of biodiesel on engine performances and emissions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1098–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Algayyim, S.J.M.; Wandel, A.P. Comparative study of spray characteristics of butanol, acetone-butanol-ethanol, butanol-acetone/diesel. In Proceedings of the Australian Combustion Symposium, Adelaide, Australia, 4–6 December 2019; The University of Adelaide: Adelaide, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hajbabaei, M.; Johnson, K.C.; Okamoto, R.A.; Mitchell APullman, M.; Durbin, T.D. Evaluation of the impacts of biodiesel and second-generation biofuels on NOx emissions for CARB diesel fuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 9163–9173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Song, W.W.; He, K.B.; Wang, J.X.; Wang, X.T.; Shi, X.Y.; Yu, C.; Chen, W.M.; Zheng, L. Emissions of EC, OC, and PAHs from cottonseed oil biodiesel in a heavy-duty diesel engine. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 6683–6689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Chauhan, B.S.; Kumar, N.; Cho, H.M.; Lim, H.C. A study on the performance and emission of a diesel engine fueled with Karanja biodiesel and its blends. Energy 2013, 56, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dhamodaran, G.; Krishnan, R.; Pochareddy, Y.K.; Pyarelal, H.M.; Sivasubramanian, H.; Ganeshram, A.K. A comparative study of combustion, emission, and performance characteristics of rice-bran-, neem-, and cottonseed-oil biodiesels with varying degree of unsaturation. Fuel 2017, 187, 296–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gopal, K.N.; Ashok, B.; Kumar, K.S.; Raj, R.T.K.; Ashok, S.D.; Varatharajan, V.; Anand, V. Performance analysis and emissions profile of cottonseed oil biodiesel–ethanol blends in a CI engine. Biofuels 2017, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nabi, M.N.; Rahman, M.M.; Akhter, M.S. Biodiesel from cotton seed oil and its effect on engine performance and exhaust emissions. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2009, 29, 2265–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Al-Muhsen, N.F.O.; Hong, G. Effect of Spark Timing on Performance and Emissions of a Small Spark Ignition Engine with Dual Ethanol Fuel Injection; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  37. Algayyim, S.J.M.; Wandel, A.P.; Yusaf, T. Mixtures of n-butanol and iso-butanol blended with diesel: Experimental investigation of combustion characteristics, engine performance and emission levels in CI engine. Biofuels 2018, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 13 06521 g001
Figure 1. Measured fuel properties. (a) Density of test blends; (b) Viscosity of test blends; (c) Calorifc values of test blends.
Figure 1. Measured fuel properties. (a) Density of test blends; (b) Viscosity of test blends; (c) Calorifc values of test blends.
Energies 13 06521 g001
Energies 13 06521 g002
Figure 2. Schematic of spray setup system.
Figure 2. Schematic of spray setup system.
Energies 13 06521 g002
Energies 13 06521 g003
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of test set-up.
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of test set-up.
Energies 13 06521 g003
Energies 13 06521 g004
Figure 4. Spray comparison images of test blends.
Figure 4. Spray comparison images of test blends.
Energies 13 06521 g004
Energies 13 06521 g005
Figure 5. Spray tip penetration of test blends.
Figure 5. Spray tip penetration of test blends.
Energies 13 06521 g005
Energies 13 06521 g006
Figure 6. Spray cone angle of test blends.
Figure 6. Spray cone angle of test blends.
Energies 13 06521 g006
Energies 13 06521 g007
Figure 7. Maximum in-cylinder pressure test fuels.
Figure 7. Maximum in-cylinder pressure test fuels.
Energies 13 06521 g007
Energies 13 06521 g008
Figure 8. Brake power (BP) of test fuels.
Figure 8. Brake power (BP) of test fuels.
Energies 13 06521 g008
Energies 13 06521 g009
Figure 9. Thermal efficiency of test fuels.
Figure 9. Thermal efficiency of test fuels.
Energies 13 06521 g009
Energies 13 06521 g010
Figure 10. Exhaust gas temperature (EGT) of test fuels.
Figure 10. Exhaust gas temperature (EGT) of test fuels.
Energies 13 06521 g010
Energies 13 06521 g011
Figure 11. NOx emissions of test fuels.
Figure 11. NOx emissions of test fuels.
Energies 13 06521 g011
Energies 13 06521 g012
Figure 12. Unburnt hydrocarbon (UHC) emissions of test fuels.
Figure 12. Unburnt hydrocarbon (UHC) emissions of test fuels.
Energies 13 06521 g012
Energies 13 06521 g013
Figure 13. CO emissions of test fuels.
Figure 13. CO emissions of test fuels.
Energies 13 06521 g013
Energies 13 06521 g014
Figure 14. CO2 emissions of test fuels.
Figure 14. CO2 emissions of test fuels.
Energies 13 06521 g014
Table 1. Fuel properties [3,19,21,24].
Table 1. Fuel properties [3,19,21,24].
PropertiesAcetoneN-ButanolEthanolCottonseed Biodiesel (Bd)Diesel (D)
Chemical formulaC3H6OC4H9OHC2H5OH-C12-C25
Composition (C, H, O) (mass%)62,10.5, 27.565,13.5, 21.5-9.2, 17.1, 2.9-
Oxygen content, (mass%)27.621.634.78≈100.0
Density (kg/L)0.9710.8100.7950.8640.82–0.86
Viscosity (mm2/s) at 40 (°C)0.352.221.083.7–4.141.9–4.1
Calorific values (MJ/kg)29.633.126.837.542.8
Cetane number-17–2585248
Flash point (°C)17.835812874
Boiling point (°C)56.111878.5280–410210–235
Latent heat vaporization (kJ/kg)501.1582904230270
Auto-ignition temperature (°C)560385434-≈300
Surface tension (mN/m)22.624.222.2732.423.8
Stoichiometric air–fuel ratio9.5411.29.0212.515
Table 2. Specification of visualization system [4,20].
Table 2. Specification of visualization system [4,20].
Injector specification
Injection typeBosch electromagnetic common rail injectors solenoid type
Number of nozzles6 holes
Nozzle diameter (nominal/measured)0.18 mm.
Camera specification
Camera resolution @ frame rate1024 × 1024 pixels @ 2000 fps
A Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor lens with a focal length of 60 mm and a maximum aperture of f/2.8D with filter size 62 mm was connected to the camera
Injection setup
Injection Pressure (bar)300
After start of injection time (ASOI) (mm)0.5–1.5
Injection enclosed angle (degree)156
Injection quantity (mg)12
Repeat time3
Table 3. Engine specifications [5,6].
Table 3. Engine specifications [5,6].
Engine specifications
Number of cylinders1
Compression ratio5:1–19:1
Bore (mm)90
Stroke (mm)74
Capacity (cm3)470
Connecting rod128
Nozzle injection pressure (bar)300
Nozzle diameter (mm)0.18
Pressure sensorKistler 6052C transducer
Temperature sensorThermocouple transducer
Engine test condition
Engine speeds test @ full load1400, 2000 and 2600 RPM
Compression ratio test19:1
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Algayyim, S.J.M.; Wandel, A.P. Comparative Assessment of Spray Behavior, Combustion and Engine Performance of ABE-Biodiesel/Diesel as Fuel in DI Diesel Engine. Energies 2020, 13, 6521. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246521

AMA Style

Algayyim SJM, Wandel AP. Comparative Assessment of Spray Behavior, Combustion and Engine Performance of ABE-Biodiesel/Diesel as Fuel in DI Diesel Engine. Energies. 2020; 13(24):6521. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246521

Chicago/Turabian Style

Algayyim, Sattar Jabbar Murad, and Andrew P. Wandel. 2020. "Comparative Assessment of Spray Behavior, Combustion and Engine Performance of ABE-Biodiesel/Diesel as Fuel in DI Diesel Engine" Energies 13, no. 24: 6521. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246521

APA Style

Algayyim, S. J. M., & Wandel, A. P. (2020). Comparative Assessment of Spray Behavior, Combustion and Engine Performance of ABE-Biodiesel/Diesel as Fuel in DI Diesel Engine. Energies, 13(24), 6521. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246521

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop