You are on page 1of 7
<a href=Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Fuel journal homepage: www.else vier.com/locate/fuel Combustion characterization in a single cylinder engine with mid-levels hydrated ethanol–gasoline blended fuels I. Schifter, L. Diaz, J.P. Gómez, U. Gonzalez Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje Central Lázaro Cárdenas No. 152, San Bartolo Atepehuacan, México, D.F. 07730, Mexico highlights " The amount of water seems to be less important than the fact that water is present. " NOx emissions seem to decrease as the water content in the fuel increases. " Differences in fuel consumption between anhydrous and hydrated ethanol is higher as ethanol contents increase. " Water slows the combustion process releasing the same amount of heat, but more efficiently. article info Article history: Received 2 March 2012 Received in revised form 14 May 2012 Accepted 3 June 2012 Available online 16 June 2012 Keywords: Ethanol Hydrated Fuel Combustion Single cylinder engine abstract The objective of this study is to reveal quantitative analysis of exhaust emissions and engine performance of mid-levels (0–40% volume) hydrous ethanol as a practical fuel to be used in lieu of traditional anhy- drous ethanol–gasoline blends. Tests were performed in a single cylinder engine with air/fuel mixture equivalence ratio varying from 0.9 to 1.1. Results show that higher pressures and lower intake temper- atures were achieved with the hydrated ethanol blends. Moreover, exhaust heat rate, combustion effi- ciency, and combustion thermal efficiency were not affected negatively by the water content. The practical consequence of burning hydrous fuel was reduced nitrogen oxides emissions that seem to decrease as the water content in the fuels increases. 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In transportation, ethanol is used as a vehicle fuel by itself, blended with gasoline, or as a gasoline octane enhancer and oxy- genate. Ethanol fuel specifications worldwide traditionally dictate use of anhydrous ethanol (less than 1% water) for gasoline blending. There is little doubt that ethanol can improve the overall energy efficiency of the vehicle fleet. Many experimental studies have confirmed that ethanol, especially high-percentage-ethanol fuels or neat ethanol, in re-tuned gasoline engines increases engine effi- ciency, torque, and power compared to baseline gasoline tests, mainly because of a superior fuel octane rating. Tests conducted worldwide have confirmed that hydrous ethanol can be blended effectively with gasoline without phase separation or other problems [1–4] . When appropriately combined in mid-level ethanol blends, the chemical reactions of these com- pounds optimize the efficiency at which internal combustion engines operate. ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 2299208171/131; fax: +52 2299222851. E-mail address: ugonzale@imp.mx (U. Gonzalez). 0016-2361/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.06.002 For hydrous ethanol blends, this is accomplished primarily through the total heat of vaporization resulting from combining ethanol and water. Essentially, the lower energy content of hydrous ethanol is counteracted by increasing engine performance due to higher heat of vaporization of ethanol and water in compar- ison with gasoline and anhydrous blends. Hydrous ethanol (also sometimes known as azeotropic ethanol) is the most concentrated grade of ethanol that can be produced by simple distillation, without the further dehydration step necessary to produce anhydrous ethanol [5] . From an environmental perspective, maintaining water in etha- nol minimizes the energy consumption in the production phase, and additional cost savings should also occur in the fuel distribu- tion system due to the less severe water tolerance practices required for hydrous versus anhydrous ethanol, and elimination of the need to produce and separately store and transport two dif- ferent forms of ethanol. Previous studies have considered the use of wet ethanol in IC engines [5–7] . These studies have been done in a variety of differ- ent IC engine types, ranging from a homogenous charge compres- sion ignition engine to a spray guide direct injection engine. " id="pdf-obj-0-5" src="pdf-obj-0-5.jpg">

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Fuel

journal homepage: www.else vier.com/locate/fuel

<a href=Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Fuel journal homepage: www.else vier.com/locate/fuel Combustion characterization in a single cylinder engine with mid-levels hydrated ethanol–gasoline blended fuels I. Schifter, L. Diaz, J.P. Gómez, U. Gonzalez Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje Central Lázaro Cárdenas No. 152, San Bartolo Atepehuacan, México, D.F. 07730, Mexico highlights " The amount of water seems to be less important than the fact that water is present. " NOx emissions seem to decrease as the water content in the fuel increases. " Differences in fuel consumption between anhydrous and hydrated ethanol is higher as ethanol contents increase. " Water slows the combustion process releasing the same amount of heat, but more efficiently. article info Article history: Received 2 March 2012 Received in revised form 14 May 2012 Accepted 3 June 2012 Available online 16 June 2012 Keywords: Ethanol Hydrated Fuel Combustion Single cylinder engine abstract The objective of this study is to reveal quantitative analysis of exhaust emissions and engine performance of mid-levels (0–40% volume) hydrous ethanol as a practical fuel to be used in lieu of traditional anhy- drous ethanol–gasoline blends. Tests were performed in a single cylinder engine with air/fuel mixture equivalence ratio varying from 0.9 to 1.1. Results show that higher pressures and lower intake temper- atures were achieved with the hydrated ethanol blends. Moreover, exhaust heat rate, combustion effi- ciency, and combustion thermal efficiency were not affected negatively by the water content. The practical consequence of burning hydrous fuel was reduced nitrogen oxides emissions that seem to decrease as the water content in the fuels increases. 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In transportation, ethanol is used as a vehicle fuel by itself, blended with gasoline, or as a gasoline octane enhancer and oxy- genate. Ethanol fuel specifications worldwide traditionally dictate use of anhydrous ethanol (less than 1% water) for gasoline blending. There is little doubt that ethanol can improve the overall energy efficiency of the vehicle fleet. Many experimental studies have confirmed that ethanol, especially high-percentage-ethanol fuels or neat ethanol, in re-tuned gasoline engines increases engine effi- ciency, torque, and power compared to baseline gasoline tests, mainly because of a superior fuel octane rating. Tests conducted worldwide have confirmed that hydrous ethanol can be blended effectively with gasoline without phase separation or other problems [1–4] . When appropriately combined in mid-level ethanol blends, the chemical reactions of these com- pounds optimize the efficiency at which internal combustion engines operate. ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 2299208171/131; fax: +52 2299222851. E-mail address: ugonzale@imp.mx (U. Gonzalez). 0016-2361/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.06.002 For hydrous ethanol blends, this is accomplished primarily through the total heat of vaporization resulting from combining ethanol and water. Essentially, the lower energy content of hydrous ethanol is counteracted by increasing engine performance due to higher heat of vaporization of ethanol and water in compar- ison with gasoline and anhydrous blends. Hydrous ethanol (also sometimes known as azeotropic ethanol) is the most concentrated grade of ethanol that can be produced by simple distillation, without the further dehydration step necessary to produce anhydrous ethanol [5] . From an environmental perspective, maintaining water in etha- nol minimizes the energy consumption in the production phase, and additional cost savings should also occur in the fuel distribu- tion system due to the less severe water tolerance practices required for hydrous versus anhydrous ethanol, and elimination of the need to produce and separately store and transport two dif- ferent forms of ethanol. Previous studies have considered the use of wet ethanol in IC engines [5–7] . These studies have been done in a variety of differ- ent IC engine types, ranging from a homogenous charge compres- sion ignition engine to a spray guide direct injection engine. " id="pdf-obj-0-16" src="pdf-obj-0-16.jpg">

Combustion characterization in a single cylinder engine with mid-levels hydrated ethanol–gasoline blended fuels

I. Schifter, L. Diaz, J.P. Gómez, U. Gonzalez

Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje Central Lázaro Cárdenas No. 152, San Bartolo Atepehuacan, México, D.F. 07730, Mexico

highlights

" The amount of water seems to be less important than the fact that water is present. " NOx emissions seem to decrease as the water content in the fuel increases. " Differences in fuel consumption between anhydrous and hydrated ethanol is higher as ethanol contents increase. " Water slows the combustion process releasing the same amount of heat, but more efficiently.

article info

Article history:

Received 2 March 2012 Received in revised form 14 May 2012 Accepted 3 June 2012 Available online 16 June 2012

Keywords:

Ethanol Hydrated Fuel Combustion Single cylinder engine

abstract

The objective of this study is to reveal quantitative analysis of exhaust emissions and engine performance of mid-levels (0–40% volume) hydrous ethanol as a practical fuel to be used in lieu of traditional anhy- drous ethanol–gasoline blends. Tests were performed in a single cylinder engine with air/fuel mixture equivalence ratio varying from 0.9 to 1.1. Results show that higher pressures and lower intake temper- atures were achieved with the hydrated ethanol blends. Moreover, exhaust heat rate, combustion effi-

ciency, and combustion thermal efficiency were not affected negatively by the water content. The practical consequence of burning hydrous fuel was reduced nitrogen oxides emissions that seem to decrease as the water content in the fuels increases.

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In transportation, ethanol is used as a vehicle fuel by itself, blended with gasoline, or as a gasoline octane enhancer and oxy- genate. Ethanol fuel specifications worldwide traditionally dictate use of anhydrous ethanol (less than 1% water) for gasoline blending. There is little doubt that ethanol can improve the overall energy efficiency of the vehicle fleet. Many experimental studies have confirmed that ethanol, especially high-percentage-ethanol fuels or neat ethanol, in re-tuned gasoline engines increases engine effi- ciency, torque, and power compared to baseline gasoline tests, mainly because of a superior fuel octane rating. Tests conducted worldwide have confirmed that hydrous ethanol can be blended effectively with gasoline without phase separation or other problems [1–4]. When appropriately combined in mid-level ethanol blends, the chemical reactions of these com- pounds optimize the efficiency at which internal combustion engines operate.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 2299208171/131; fax: +52 2299222851. E-mail address: ugonzale@imp.mx (U. Gonzalez).

0016-2361/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

For hydrous ethanol blends, this is accomplished primarily through the total heat of vaporization resulting from combining ethanol and water. Essentially, the lower energy content of hydrous ethanol is counteracted by increasing engine performance due to higher heat of vaporization of ethanol and water in compar- ison with gasoline and anhydrous blends. Hydrous ethanol (also sometimes known as azeotropic ethanol) is the most concentrated grade of ethanol that can be produced by simple distillation, without the further dehydration step necessary to produce anhydrous ethanol [5]. From an environmental perspective, maintaining water in etha- nol minimizes the energy consumption in the production phase, and additional cost savings should also occur in the fuel distribu- tion system due to the less severe water tolerance practices required for hydrous versus anhydrous ethanol, and elimination of the need to produce and separately store and transport two dif- ferent forms of ethanol. Previous studies have considered the use of wet ethanol in IC engines [5–7]. These studies have been done in a variety of differ- ent IC engine types, ranging from a homogenous charge compres- sion ignition engine to a spray guide direct injection engine.

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298

293

These studies generally conclude that the use of ethanol is effective for engine operation but that a modified engine tuning is beneficial for maximum performance. Particularly in IC engines it is beneficial to tune the engine specifically for ethanol which in- cludes modifying the injection size, injection timing, and ignition timing [4,5–17]. Venugopal et al. [18]. found that performance, emissions and combustion characteristics of a port-injected engine fuelled with 10% hydrous ethanol–gasoline blend produce higher power output with lean mixtures at part throttle condition when compared with gasoline operation. Higher flame velocity and wider flammability limits of the blend resulted in lower cycle-by-cycle variations in indicated mean effective pressure as compared to gasoline [18]. Hydrous ethanol is being used in dedicated alternative fuel vehicles, as well as in flex fuel vehicles which experience only moderately cold conditions. Since ethanol has a 9.0:1 stoichiometric AFR, vehicles are tuned to operate with a fuel rich mixture (any mixture less than 14.7:1 is referred as a rich mixture), which helps explain why the drivability and fuel economy are being affected [3]. Flex fuel vehicles can burn mixtures from E20 up to E100 in Brazil and, E0 up to E85 in USA. Moreover, an effective way of using wet ethanol in internal combustion engines is homogenous charge compression ignition, and a few studies show that it might be possible to use ethanol containing up to 70% water in ethanol [19]. In addition, the use of ethanol–gasoline blends and pure ethanol can reduce significantly CO and HC emissions in comparison to gasoline [17,20–22]. However, NOx emission in case of ethanol– gasoline blends can be lower by 30% [21] and also higher by 50% [22] as compared to gasoline [10,17,20–24]. We have previously shown that a constant mass fuel rates, blends up to 10% volume anhydrous ethanol have marginal effects in combustion rates when compared to non-oxygenated fuels, but for 20% volume, combustion increases cyclic dispersion, the effect in fuel consumption observed was lower than predicted by the

reduction of energy content in the gasoline, suggesting positive ef- fects in combustion efficiency [25]. Therefore, this study compares the effect of using gasoline–eth- anol mid-level blends (10–40% anhydrous or hydrated) on engine performance and exhaust emission on a single cylinder spark ig- nited engine.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Test fuels

The hygroscopic nature of ethanol was taken into consideration during the experimental investigations, and several measures such as a humidity free confined storage refrigerator were taken to com- bat the hygroscopic nature of the fuel. Eight fuels were prepared and provided for testing for this study. A base fuel was formulated by blending five refinery streams employed in commercial gasoline preparation. (A) reformate (about 43% aromatics), (B) alkylate (about 99% iso-paraffins), (C) catalytic cracker gasoline (about 17% olefins), (D) isomerate (about 99% iso-paraffins) and, (E) straight run gasoline (about 96% normal paraffin). Four fuels containing 10% (E10), 20% (E20), 30% (E30), and 40% (E40) anhydrous ethanol were prepared from the base fuel The eth- anol employed (99.9 vol.%; sulfur, 2 ppm) complied with the Amer- ican Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), D-4806-08 specifications

[26].

Similarly, four fuels containing 10% (HE10), 20% (HE20), 30% (HE30), and 40% (HE40) hydrated ethanol was formulated with the base fuel. The hydrous ethanol employed was prepared adding 4% volume of water at the same ethanol used for anhydrous blends, then this mixture is added in volume to the fuel, for example for 10% ethanol hydrous in 10 l of fuel, we would have 9 l of oxygenate free fuel, 960 ml of ethanol and 40 ml of water. Both set of fuels were prepared by the ‘‘splash blending’’ tech- nique following procedures similar to Pahl and McNally [27].

Table 1

Fuel properties.

 

Inspection

Gasolines

 

Base

E10

E20

E30

E40

HE10

HE20

HE30

HE40

fuel

Sulfur content (ppm)

Composition

98

7

5

5

8

7

6

4

IBP

38.8

37.8

38.6

37.2

39.6

37.4

38.3

39

38.7

10% Evaporated

56.1

52.9

51.3

52.1

53.4

51.3

50.8

52.5

52.1

50% Evaporated

109.6

95.8

73.8

74.6

72.5

94.1

74.8

75.2

72.8

90% Evaporated

161.5

157

156.2

154.6

152.7

156.3

155

153.1

150.8

End point ( C)

206.3

208.4

203.6

205.1

204.1

206.4

209.2

205.4

210.2

Reid vapor

48.7

55.2

53.91

52.6

50.6

55.9

53.4

51.7

50.1

pressure (kpa)

100%

90% Fuel,

80% Fuel,

70% Fuel,

60% Fuel,

90% Fuel, 9.6%

80% Fuel, 19.2%

70% Fuel, 28.8%

.6 Fuel, 38.4%

(%vol.)

Fuel

10% EtOH

20% EtOH

30% EtOH

40% EtOH

EtOH, .4% water

EtOH, .8% water

EtOH, 1.2% water

EtOH, 1.6% water

Olefins

4.8

4.4

3.8

3.5

3.0

4.3

3.9

3.4

2.9

Aromatics

26.5

23.9

21.4

18.4

16.0

24.0

21.3

18.6

16.0

Paraffins

11.4

10.1

9.0

8.1

6.7

10.3

9.1

8.0

6.7

Isoparaffins

52.6

47.3

42.1

36.9

31.6

47.2

42.0

36.7

31.6

Naphtenes

4.7

4.2

3.7

3.0

2.7

4.2

3.8

3.3

2.8

Oxygenate

0

10

20

30

40

9.6

19.2

28.8

38.4

Oxygen (wt.%)

0

3.7

7.2

11

14.5

3.6

7.1

10.7

14.1

Reserch octane number (RON)

91.7

95.7

97.4

99.2

N/D

95.8

97.1

98.8

N/D

Motor octane number

82.8

84.1

85.7

87.6

N/D

84.4

85.4

87.2

N/D

Octane index

87.2

89.9

91.6

93.4

N/D

90.1

91.3

93

N/D

Net heating value

42.7

41.0

39.5

37.8

36.2

40.7

39.2

37.5

35.8

(Mj/kg) Relative density

0.7354 0.7412

0.7471

0.7529

0.7693

0.7421

0.7487

0.7554

0.7621

Driveability index

574.5

537.1

481.2

496.5

503.5

528.3

481.1

495.8

498.4

294

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298

Splash blends were used for expediency in this study due to the long iterative development process required to obtain match blended fuels. Main differences in fuel chemistry between splash-blended and match-blended fuels are expected to be vapor pressure and hydro- carbon profile, neither of which is expected to have a significant ef- fect on the major findings of this study. Physical and chemical properties of the fuels are presented in Table 1.

2.2. Single cylinder testing

As described previously [25] an AVL 5401 engine was employed during testing. The spark ignited engine, is electronically controlled and capable of 25 KW at 6000 RPM, its coupled to an asynchronous dynamometer with closed tolerances of ±1 RPM. Temperature, pressure, humidity and mass of air are controlled as well as the ex- haust pressure by an electric valve preserving the same exhaust restriction characteristics across the tests. System is currently utilizing a stand-alone fuel management system (GEMS) capable of modifying independently injection and spark ignition timing as well as monitoring the in chamber pres- sure. Inductive sensors are used to detect injection pulse and igni- tion timing providing the data required for re-constructing the thermodynamic cycle that occurs within the engine. Mass fraction burned (MFB) in each individual engine cycle is a normalized quantity with a scale of 0–1, describing the process of chemical energy release as a function of crank angle. Mass fraction burn criteria are used to find max performance point. Emissions are monitored by an AVL CEBII analytical system which uses several different methods to acquire data; flame ioniza- tion detector to measure total hydrocarbons while CO and CO 2 are measured by non dispersive infra-red detector, NOx by CLD (Che- mo-luminescence detection) and free oxygen by a paramagnetic sensor.

2.2.1. Air–fuel ratio

When comparing fuels with different oxygenate contents or with different gasoline/ethanol mixtures, it becomes necessary the use of a dimensionless unit that allows us to transfer within the same range of air–fuel ratios for every composition. This is accomplished by using the Brettschneider equation [28] which provides the lambda value based on exhaust emissions and fuel

composition.

 

½

CO

  • 2 þ½ CO þ½O 2 þ

2

  • 2 þ

NO

H cv

3:5

!

O cv

2

! ð½CO 2 þ½CO Þ

  • 4

3:5þ

½CO

k ¼

 

½

CO

2

 

1 þ H cv ½CO þ½CO þ

4

2

C

O cv

  • 2 ½HC

factor

In the equation, H cv is the atomic ratio of hydrogen to carbon in the fuel, O cv the atomic ratio of oxygen to carbon in the fuel and C factor is the number of carbon atoms in each of the hydrocarbons molecules measured. Numerator compares all the oxygen sources in the com- bustion while denominator compares sources of carbon and hydro- gen. Water concentration is determined as a fraction of the sum of CO 2 and CO, and the ratio of CO to CO 2 by the ‘3.5’ term in the numerator. Lambda obtained as a dimensionless value describe different mixtures: Lambda = 1 stoichiometry, Lambda >1 lean combustion and Lambda <1 rich combustion. The air/fuel ratio is obtained multiplying the lambda value by the stoichiometric A/F ratio of the selected fuel – e.g. 14.71 for common gasoline without oxygenates or 9.0 for pure ethanol. The emission gas analyzer, AVL CEBII, provides the required data to fill the equation and the application of this equation is

Table 2

Engine operating condition during test.

 
 

General method set points

 

Revolutions per minute

2000 rpm

Intake

pressure

1035 mbar

Intake

air temperature

40 C

Intake relative humidity

<1%

Fuel pressure

2.8 bar

Fuel

temperature

35 C

Coolant temperature

95 C

Oil temperature

90 C

Constant mass fuel rate test

Intake mass air flow Mean effective pressure (at k = 0.85) Ignition spark advancer

0.9–1.1 Lambda test Intake mass air flow Mean effective pressure (at k = 1) Ignition spark advance

14.7 m 3 5.7 bar 19.8 Before top dead center

15.7 m 3 5.7 bar 18.4 Before top dead center

monitored and calculated in real time by its addition in the main controls of the engine itself.

2.2.2. Engine operating parameters Table 2 shows the operating conditions that were selected to avoid performance issues; at high speeds the inlet flow during part of the induction process can become choked and therefore sub- stantially reduces volumetric efficiency. At the opposite, slow en- gine speeds such as idle are more prone to higher heat transfer of energy trough the combustion walls which will lower the aver- age combustion gas temperature and pressure, and therefore re- duce the work per cycle transferred to the piston [29].

2.3. Statistical analysis

For each lambda value, at least 100 values were sampled and its dispersion was analyzed by means of descriptive statistics com- mon methods. The mean and the median value of each data set was compared in order to determine the nature of the distribution obtained; for each variable a 95% statistical confidence level was considered. In the case of indicated mean effective pressure, 50% burned fuel mass and maximum in camera pressure, the dispersion of the experimental results are more related to a cycle-by-cycle combustion variation than to statistical error.

3. Results and discussion

Fig. 1 represents a comparison in terms of vapor pressure (VP)

variation related to the reference fuel (without ethanol). Low eth- anol levels increase VP of ethanol–gasoline fuels, for instance eth- anol contents from 5% to 10% show the highest vapor pressures but the VP value is strongly dependent of the base gasoline composi- tion used for the fuel blend stock. Raw ethanol has a lower VP than gasoline, so ethanol would be expected to always reduce the VP in a gasoline blend. This positive deviation from ideal mixture behav- ior (Raoult’s Law) occurs because the amount of intermolecular interactions between ethanol and hydrocarbon molecules is lower than that when they are two pure liquids, making it easier for mol- ecules to volatilize from the ethanol–hydrocarbon mixture. Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (IMEP), represents the useful work provided by the engine, as expected, it has a decreasing behavior as the ethanol content increases because the lower calo- rific power, nevertheless, for hydrated ethanol, reduction of IMEP value is lower than the one obtained with anhydrous ethanol. This behavior is very similar for the studied range of air/fuel ratios (from 10% excess fuel, to 10% excess air).

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298

295

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298 295 Fig. 1. Reid vapor pressure of

Fig. 1. Reid vapor pressure of anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends.

Fig. 2 shows the IMEP values as a function of the % ethanol in fuels blends. Measurable increases in the IMEP are calculated con- sidering 68% statistical confidence level. On notice that as lambda increases from 0.9 to 1.1 the cycle-by-cycle combustion variation is higher as the air/fuel ratio gets leaner, this fact is represented by the whiskers. As the ethanol contents increases in the fuel the cycle-by-cycle variation is almost constant and can be inferred that the addition of ethanol does not deteriorate combustion quality. These notorious phenomena can be associated mostly to the benefits of oxygenation and heat of vaporization in conjunction with differences in chemical and physical properties that optimize the efficiency of internal combustion engines. The lower energy content of hydrous ethanol is counteracted by it increasing engine efficiency due to higher heat of vaporization of ethanol and water in comparison with gasoline and anhydrous blends. This effect is more notorious as the ethanol contents increase up to 40% and is almost unnoticeable at 10% ethanol volume. There- fore, the net results are related to the increases in total heat of vaporization and to the reduction in the initial temperature charge in the compression stroke which diminishes the pumping losses. Depending of vapor pressure, vaporization of the blend can occur in the intake manifold or in the combustion chamber. If

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298 295 Fig. 1. Reid vapor pressure of

Fig. 3. Intake air temperature of anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends.

the evaporation occurs in the intake manifold not only reduces the pumping losses but increases the charge density (air mass admitted) and the associated fuel mass for the same air–fuel ratio. In the present study the air-mass admitted was kept constant in order to preserve the thermo-dynamical properties in the engine as constant as possible. Throughout the whole experimentation pro- cess, intake air temperature was adjusted to 40 C upstream the injector, measured after the injection point on the intake manifold. The intake air temperature of anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends plotted as a function of the ethanol content (Fig. 3) shows that values are lower temperatures for hydrated ethanol, and seemingly this effect is not related to the amount of water, just by its presence. It is also evident that it depends of VP, as it in- creases, there is an increased evaporation rate in the manifold. As ethanol and water constitute an azeotrope, they evaporate together inside the intake manifold, therefore due to the high latent heat of vaporization of water, when compared to ethanol alone; it absorbs heat from the intake air, reducing the tempera- tures from 40 C to almost 15 C in the injector proximities. The minimum intake air temperature corresponds to the maximum VP values.

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298 295 Fig. 1. Reid vapor pressure of

Fig. 2. Indicated mean effective pressure of anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends.

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298 295 Fig. 1. Reid vapor pressure of

Fig. 4. 50% Burned fuel mass for anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends.

296

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298

296 I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298 Fig. 5. Maximum camera pressure for

Fig. 5. Maximum camera pressure for anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends.

296 I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298 Fig. 5. Maximum camera pressure for

Fig. 6. Exhaust gas temperature of anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends.

For rich, lean and stoichiometric mixtures, crank angle for 50% burnt mass remains almost constant for 10% and 20% in volume of ethanol blends, for increased ethanol content blends, crank an- gle decreases, representing a faster combustion process as shown in Fig. 4. For rich and stoichiometric mixtures this behavior is less pro- nounced when utilizing hydrated ethanol. Water content in the fuel decreases combustion speed, as expected and mitigates the in- creases in combustion speed associated to ethanol in gasoline. As a first approach this increases in combustion speed for etha- nol blends seem to be positive in order to improve the efficiency of the Otto Cycle by means of a more isochoric combustion,

296 I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298 Fig. 5. Maximum camera pressure for

Fig. 7. Maximum NOx emissions for anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends.

nevertheless, it is only possible to take advantage of fast combustion in modern engines with complex spark advance algorithms and knock sensors. For the main part of the vehicular fleet, the faster combustion speed could be associated with increases in the combustion cham- ber pressure and possibly with knocking, even if the octane index is optimal. For lean mixtures it seems water has no effect at all in combustion speed, maybe because the effect of water content is marginal when compared to the effect of the air–fuel ratio. Minor effect in the 50% burned fuel cycle-by-cycle variation are detected as the ethanol contents increases as noted in the maxi- mum camera pressure for anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends shown in Fig. 5; this fact confirms that there is no combustion deterioration even for high ethanol content fuel blends. The maximum camera pressure is almost linear for every tested lambda except for the 40% anhydrous ethanol which seems to in- crease. Water reduces the maximum camera pressure, which is also documented on the bibliography and it is the reason for which water injection systems reduce the fuel octane requirement and the NOx emissions. The water absorbs heat and lowers the pressure as the charge is compressed reducing the compression stroke work. Additionally, during the combustion itself, water absorbs heat as it vaporizes reducing peak temperatures and then reducing NOx emissions. This peak temperature reduction diminishes the heat flux to the cylinder wall. As a result of reduced intake air temperatures and the effects in the combustion process itself, fuel blends of gasoline with hydrated ethanol present slightly lower exhaust gas temperatures as shown in Fig. 6; however, even when these differences could seem marginal, they scale perfectly to the amount of EtOH con- tained. Water tends to reduce exhaust gas temperature at every lambda because of his high latent heat of vaporization, i.e. water evaporates during the cycle and the temperature is reduced.

Table 3

Emissions for anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends.

 
 

Emission

Ethanol content

Reference value (ppm)

E10 (%)

E20 (%)

E30 (%)

E40 (%)

HE10 (%)

HE20 (%)

HE30 (%)

HE40 (%)

CO

7366

3

400

2

7

1

0

CO 2

138,405

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

NOx

3055

6

10

10

9

7

9

11

13

HC

2164

7

10

9

10

5

3

8

12

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298

297

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298 297 Fig. 8. Mass fuel consumption for

Fig. 8. Mass fuel consumption for anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends.

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298 297 Fig. 8. Mass fuel consumption for

Fig. 9. Indicated and net engine power at 40% volume of anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends.

Table 3 shows emissions variations with respect to the base fuel (E0). Concentration values in ppm were obtained by numerical integration for lambda values from 0.9 to 1.1, even when the main objective of the methodological procedures is not focused on emis- sions; they represent a weighted concentration for back to back comparison between fuels. All the tested fuels present reductions in emissions respect to base fuel, nevertheless, most of the reductions are marginal. Only the NOx and unburned hydrocarbons present significant decreases. In accordance with the results, the emission behavior of gasoline blended with hydrated ethanol its better than the one blended with anhydrous ethanol. Nitrogen oxides increases with temperature and combustion chamber peak pressure, as they represent a balance between the reductions in temperature and the increase in peak pressure as the ethanol content in fuel rises. Water in the hydrated ethanol de- creases temperature, combustion speed and peak pressure when compared to the anhydrous ethanol, therefore improving the NOx emission especially for 30% and 40% ethanol content. Fig. 7 shows that the maximum NOx emission for anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends was for lambda values of 1.05 ± .01

(Between 4% and 6% lean). For hydrated ethanol, the peak emission decreases as the oxygenate contents increase, nevertheless, for the anhydrous ethanol the NOx increases again when the ethanol con- tents are 30% and higher. Fuel mass consumption shown in Fig. 8 was obtained from stoi- chiometry and considering that water is obviously not reacting chemically, the slight increments when using the hydrated ethanol are due to the fact that water does not add to energy contents in fuel. Nevertheless, the difference in fuel consumption between anhydrous and hydrated ethanol is higher as ethanol contents in- creases, showing a strong relationship between fuel consumption and water contents in the gasoline. Water contents in the gasoline, may modify the power output of the engine in many different ways: by reducing the compression work, by increasing the work done during the power stroke, by reducing temperature of the charge which reduce heat loss and by increasing the burn rate. When the fuel presents water contents, the water is injected along with the fuel in to the intake manifold and drawn in to the engine, part of the fuel is still liquid though it is in droplets and

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298 297 Fig. 8. Mass fuel consumption for

Fig. 10. Accumulated mass burn for 40% of anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends.

298

I. Schifter et al. / Fuel 103 (2013) 292–298

part evaporates in the intake manifold, depending mainly of fuel VP and intake manifold temperature and pressure. When the charge is compressed, its temperature increases, however, the water absorbs some of this heat and then is evapo- rated, then some of the heat produced by compression stroke is ab- sorbed by the water, the charge is cooler and the pressure reached is reduced. Fig. 9 shows that the indicated and net engine power at 40% vol- ume of anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends are greater due to the water presence as a consequence of the difference in pressure during compression and power stroke which increases the net power of the engine, especially at rich air fuel ratios. Water slows the combustion process, but keeps constant the amount of energy produced on each cycle, it releases the same amount of heat, but more efficiently as can be seen in the calcu- lated accumulated mass burn for 40% of anhydrous and hydrated ethanol blends shown in Fig. 10.

4. Conclusion

Intake temperature decrease with the presence of water but does not decrease further with his content, therefore the amount seems to be less important than the fact that water is present. Even at very low content (2% vol. and below), NOx seems to decrease as the water content in the fuel increases. Differences in fuel consumption between anhydrous and hydrated ethanol is higher as ethanol contents increase, this suggest a strong relationship between fuel consumption and water contents in the gasoline. Water slows the combustion process but keeps constant the quantity of energy produced per cycle, the amount of work obtained therefore is the same, it releases the same amount of heat, but more efficiently.

References

[1] Orbital Engine Company. Market barriers to the uptake of biofuels study. A testing based assessment to determine impacts of a 20% ethanol gasoline fuel blend on the Australian passenger vehicle fleet. Report to environment Australia; 2003. [2] Bromberg L, Blumberg P. Estimates of DI hydrous ethanol utilization for knock avoidance and comparison to a measured and simulated DI E85 baseline. MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center and Ethanol Boosting Systems LLC. Report PSFC/JA-09-33; 2009. [3] Delgado R, Araujo AS, Fernandes VJ. Properties of Brazilian gasoline mixed with hydrated ethanol for flex-fuel technology. Fuel Process Technol

2007;88:365–8.

[4] Al-Hasan M. Effect of ethanol–unleaded gasoline blends on engine performance and exhaust emission. Energy Convers Manage 2003;44:1547–61. [5] Brewster S, Railton D, Maisey M, Frew R. The effect of E100 water content on high load performance of a spray guide direct injection boosted engine. Congress SAE Brazil, 2007-01-2648. São Paulo, Brazil. [6] Mack JH, Aceves SM, Dibble RW. Demonstrating direct use of wet ethanol in a homogeneous charge compression ignition engine. Energy 2009;34:782–7.

[7] Clarke CD, Beyerlin E, Steciak S, Cherry M. Catalytic igniter to support combustion of ethanol–water/air mixtures in internal combustion engines. Paper no. 2002-01-2863. Warrandale (PA, USA): Society of Automotive Engineers; 2002. [8] Rice R, Sanyal A, Elrod A, Bata R. Exhaust gas emissions of butanol, ethanol, and methanol–gasoline blends. J Eng Gas Turb Power 1991;113:377–81. [9] Huang Z, Miao H, Zhou L, Jiang D. Combustion characteristics and hydrocarbon emissions of a spark ignition engine fuelled with gasoline–oxygenate blends. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part D 2000;214:341–6. [10] Poulopoulos S, Samaras D, Philippopoulos C. Regulated and unregulated emissions from an internal combustion engine operating on ethanol- containing fuels. Atmos Environ 2001;35:4399–406. [11] Schifter I, Vera M, Diaz L, Guzman E, Ramos F, Lopez-Salinas E. Environmental implications on the oxygenation of gasoline with ethanol in the metropolitan area of Mexico city. Environ Sci Technol 2001;35:1893–901. [12] Hsieh WD, Chen RH, Wu TL, Lin TH. Engine performance and pollutant emission of an engine using ethanol–gasoline blended fuels. Atmos Environ

2002;36:403–10.

[13] Yüksel F, Yüksel B. The use of ethanol–gasoline blends as a fuel in an SI engine. Renew Energy 2004;29:1181–91. [14] Jia LW, Shen MQ, Wang J, Lin MQ. Influence of ethanol–gasoline blended fuel on emission characteristics from a four-stroke motorcycle engine. J Hazard Mater 2005;123:29–34. [15] Graham LA, Belisle SL, Baas CL. Emissions from light duty gasoline vehicles operating on low blend ethanol gasoline and E85. Atmos Environ

2008;42:4498–516.

[16] Yanowitz J, McCormick RL. Effect of E85 on tailpipe emissions from light-duty vehicles. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 2009;59:172–82. [17] Li L, Liu Z, Wang H, Deng B, Xiao Z, Wang Z, et al. Combustion and emission of ethanol fuel (E100) in small SI engine SAE technical paper no. 2003-01- 3262. Warrandale (PA, USA): Society of Automotive Engineers; 2003. [18] Venugopal T, Sharma A, Satapathy S, Ramesh A, Gajendra MK. Experimental study of hydrous ethanol gasoline blend (E10) in a four stroke port fuel- injected spark ignition engine. Int J Energ Res 2012 [published online 2 February]. [19] Flowers DL, Aceves SM, Martinez-Frías J. Improving ethanol life cycle energy efficiency by direct utilization of wet ethanol in HCCI engines. SAE technical paper no. 2007-01-1867. Warrandale (PA, USA): Society of Automotive Engineers; 2007. [20] Costa RC, Sodre JR. Hydrous ethanol vs. gasoline–ethanol blend: engine performance and emissions. Fuel 2009;89:287–93. [21] Chen RH, Chiang LB, Wu MH, Lin TH. Gasoline displacement and NOx reduction in an SI engine by aqueous alcohol injection. Fuel 2009;89:

604–10.

[22] Agarwal AK. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal combustion engines. Prog Energ Comb Sci 2006;33:233–71. [23] He BQ, Wang JX, Hao JM, Yan XG, Xiao JH. A study on emission characteristics of an EFI engine with ethanol blended gasoline fuels. Atmos Environ

2003;37:949–57.

[24] Niven RK. Ethanol in gasoline: environmental impacts and sustainability. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2005;9:535–55. [25] Schifter I, Diaz L, Rodriguez R, Gómez JP, Gonzalez U. Combustion and emissions behavior for ethanol–gasoline blends in a single cylinder engine. Fuel 2011;90:3586–92. [26] ASTM. American society for testing materials, standard specification for denatured fuel ethanol for blending with gasoline for use as automotive spark-ignition engine fuel. ASTM D 4806-08, ASTM International, Philadelphia, (PA, USA); 2008. [27] Pahl RH, McNally MJ. Fuel blending and analysis for the auto/oil air quality improvement research program. Paper no. 902098. Warrandale, (PA, USA): Society of Automotive Engineers; 1990. [28] Brettschneider J. Calculation of the air ratio of air–fuel mixtures and the influence of measurement errors on k, in Bosch Technische Berichte (Technical report), 1979; 6: 177–186. [29] Heywood JB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. New York: McGraw Hill; 1989.