In-Cylinder
Pressure Characteristics
Using Blends of Diesel Fuel and Methyl
of a Cl Engine
Esters
of Beef
Tallow’
Yusuf Ali, Milford A. Hanna and Joseph E. Borg2
STUDENT
MEMBER
MEMBER
ABSTRACT
A Cummins
N14-410
blending
methyl tailowate,
cylinder
pressure
pressures
data
diesel engine
was operated
on twelve
fuels produced
methyl soyate and ethanol with No.2 diesel fuel.
were used
to evaluate
engine
Engine in-
Peak cylinder
performance.
for each fuel blend at all engine speeds were lower than peak pressure
diesel fuel with the exception
of the 80 % diesel, 13 % methyl tallowate,
by
for
and 7 % ethanol;
and the 80 % diesel, 6.5 % methyl tallowate, 6.5 % methyl soyate and 7 % ethanol blends.
The indicated mean effective pressure
diesel fuel. The differences
(IMEP) values for ail fuel blends
in lMEP values correlated
the engine. Similarly, maximum rates of pressure
for diesel fuel.
detrimental
KEYWORDS:
It was concluded
with differences
were less than for
in power output of
rise for most fuel blends were less than
that the fuel blends used in this study would have no
long term effects on engine performance,
engine wear and knock.
Methyl tallowate, methyl soyate, biodiesel,
peak pressure,
indicated
mean effective
ethanol,
pressure,
Cummins engine,
rate of pressure
change.
‘Journal
Series Number
11072 of the University
of Nebraska
Agricultural
Research
Division.
‘The authors are: Yusuf Ali, Graduate Research
Assistant, Milford A. Hanna, Professor
Industrial Agricultural Products Center, and Joseph E. Borg, Graduate Research Assistant,
Bological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, NE 68583-0726.
and Director,
Department of
INTRODUCTION
Interest
in cleaner
burning
fuel is growing
emissions from the internal combustion
recognized that alternative
engine
diesel fuels produced
reduction
performance
in -NOx emissions
reported a reduction
from vegetable
in exhaust
Schumacher
when a diesel engine
It is widely
oils and animal fats can
ignition (Cl) engines
(Ali et al., 1995a).
soydiesel and diesel blends as compared
and reduction
(IC) engine is of utmost importance.
reduce the exhaust emissions from compression
affecting
worldwide
without significantly
et al. (1993)
was fueled
reported
with 10 to 40 % (v/v)
to 100 % diesel or 100 % soydiesel.
in engine exhaust opacity with increasing
a
soydiesel
They also
in the soydiesel
and diesel fuel blend.
Ali et al. (1995a)
reported
no difference
in power output with different
diesel fuel, methyl tallowate,
methyl soyate and ethanol.
emissions
by the blends used, but hydrocarbon
(HC) emissions
were
lower with an 80:13:7 % (v/v) blend of diesekmethyl
tallowate:ethanol;
the
were not affected
significantly
recommended
blend for minimum emissions as compared
Pollutant emissions
the combustion
diesel engine
chamber
process.
reduction from diesel engines
However,
CO, CO,, O2 and NOx
with No.2 diesel fuel.
requires
detailed knowledge
the complex nature of the combustion
makes it difficult to understand
which determine
Further,
blends of
the events
occurring
the emissions of exhaust gases including
process in a
in the combustion
CO, CO,, HC and
NO,. Several studies have reported on the effects of fuel and engine parameters
exhaust emissions.
measurement
Kittleson et al. (1988) conducted
on a single-cylinder
conversion
in-cylinder
of a 4-cylinder,
of
on diesel
and exhaust soot mass
direct injection (DI) diesel
3
engine using a sampling system which allowed dumping, diluting, quenching
and collecting
the entire contents of the cylinder on a time scale of about 1 ms. Soot mass was observed
shortly after top dead center (ATDC)
angle
(CA) ATDC.
After reaching
increasing CA and approached
0,
availability,
which reached
its peak value,
a peak between
15 and 30” crank
soot concentration
exhaust levels by 40 - 60 “CA ATDC.
late in the cycle, was a critical factor
decreased
They concluded
in determining
exhaust
with
that
soot
concentrations.
Barbella
hydrocarbons,
et al. (1989) studied the formation
CO, CO,, and NO, during the combustion cycle of a DI diesel engine.
observed that the concentrations
of the combustion
of heavy hydrocarbons
cycle. Maximum
soot formation
phase in as little as 10 “CA ATDC
soot formation
and oxidation of soot, light and heavy
decreased
To understand
combustion
chamber
undertaken
to determine
reaching
decreased during the early stages
occurred during the diffusion
a concentration
slowly in 40 “CA ATDC up to 0.05 mg/NL in the exhaust.
the complete
in-cylinder
combustion
pressure
cylinder pressure,
MATERIALS
and Instrumentation:
this research.
Specifications
The engine
dynamometer
process
and events
data must be analyzed.
in the
This project was
N14-410
diesel engine.
AND METHODS
Nl4-410
of the engine are presented
DI diesel engine was used in
in Table 1.
to an Eaton 522 kW dynamatic
Power Transmission
occurring
rate of pressure change and their respective
A 1991 Cummins
was coupled
(EATON
burning
of 1.3 mg/NL, after that the
locations on selected biofuels and diesel blends using a Cummins
Engine
They
eddy current
Systems, Eaton Corp., Kenosha,
dry gap
WI) with a
4
DANA 1810 coupler.
IO integrator
Engine torque was measured
(Day-tronic
Corp., Miamisburg,
tooth sprocket and magnetic
speed were controlled
measurement
connected
The pressure transducer
cylinder.
pickup attached to the dynamometer.
were
to a KISTLER
Engine torque and
controller
made
using
an AVL QH32C
using a Gurley Precision
rotary shaft encoder.
The optical shaft encoder
Instruments
connected
Corp. SF-1815
to a Super-Flow
signals. The charge amplifier
data
were
collected
The encoder was
Power Supply that
for the crank angle and top dead center
and power supply outputs were connected
Corp. DAB 500 high speed data acquisition
The
Engine Cycle Analyzer
and signal conditioning
using
to a SuperFlow
board placed in a 66 MHZ 80486 based PC.
a ECA911
Specifications for pressure transducer,
Model 8225
was mounted to the front
to the crank shaft with a flexible coupler.
both power
quartz
Model 5004 Dual Mode Charge Amplifier.
of the engine and connected
supplied
in conjunction
was located in the head of cylinder No.1 close to the center of the
Crank angle was measured
3600-CDSD-KZ
using a 60
throttle controller.
pressure
pressure transducer
OH), and speed was measured
with an Eaton Dynamatic dynamometer
with a Jordan controls
In-cylinder
with a load cell and Daytronic system
SuperFlow
Corp.
software
charge amplifier and shaft encoder
package.
are presented
in Table 2.
Fuels : Blends of high sulfur (0.24 Oh)No.2 diesel fuel, methyl tallowate, methyl soyate and
fuel ethanol
were
The methyl tallowate
made and tested.
Specific blend compositions
and methyl soyate were produced
Kansas City, KS and purchased
from lnterchem,
are given in Table 3.
by Proctor and Gamble Co. of
Inc. of Kansas
City, MO.
Physical
properties of methyl tallowate, methyl soyate and their blends with diesel fuel and ethanol
were reported
Testing
by Ali et al. (1995b).
Procedure
: The charge amplifier and the SuperFlow
on two hours before collecting data to allow the instruments
started and warmed-up,
power supply were turned
to stabilize.
at low idle, long enough to establish
The engine was
recommended
oil pressure
and was checked for any fuel, oil, water and air leaks. The speed was then increased
1600 rev/min
and sufficient
After completion
load was applied to raise the coolant temperature
of the warm-up
procedure,
at rated engine speed (1800 rev/min)
The test procedure
consisted
the intake and exhaust restrictions
of an eight mode steady state emissions
map. Table 4 presents the speeds and loads used for the different
Power Laboratory
at the University
and data were collected during the last 2 min of operation.
was at its maximum
constant
were set
test sequence
the torque and power
tests.
The testing was
of Nebraska-Lincoln.
The engine was run at each speeds and load combination
for all 12 speed and load combinations.
to 71 “C.
and full load, and from then on were not adjusted.
followed by four full load test points at different speeds to complete
done in the Nebraska
to
for a minimum
Pressure
of 6 min
data were collected
For this paper only data taken while the engine
load at a given speed were used.
taken at engine speeds of 1100,1200,1400,1600,
The data points were
1800 and 1900 rev/min
Data were collected over 450 engine cycles at each point and averaged.
and full loads.
6
RESULTS
In-cylinder
determined
pressure
AND DISCUSSION
and change
in pressure
with respect to crank angle were
and analyzed for different fuel blends. The crank angle at which peak pressure
developed
inside the cylinder was determined
No.2 diesel fuel in terms of peak pressure
that affect peak pressure
influences of combustion
for each fuel blend and was compared
magnitude
include compression
chamber
ratio, load or volumetric
design on combustion
do fuel specific heat, energy content, and quality.
maximum cylinder pressure
and crank angle location.
with
Factors
efficiency,
and
duration and heat transfer.
So
Abnormal
phenomena
which affect
are knock and partial burn.
The purpose of an engine is to generate internal pressure which can be used to do
work.
Therefore,
pressures
high pressures
are desirable.
are a source of potential damage
However,
excessively
and should be avoided.
high and erratic
Knowledge
limits of pressure and maximum rate of pressure change can be used to determine
other than diesel fuel, can cause engine damage
Pressure
vs Crank
performance.
Angle
:
This relationship
of the
if fuels,
or failure.
gives a gross indication
of engine
It answers questions related to engine knock, the location of peak pressure;
and the value of the peak pressure.
The values of peak pressure developed
in the engine and the crank angle location
at peak pressure (LPP) for the fuel blends at different
Table
5.
Representative
graphs
showing
engine speeds are presented
the maximum
and minimum
pressure
respect to crank angle for peak torque and rated speed are shown in Figs. 7 and 2.
in
with
7
It was observed
(Table 5) that in-cylinder peak pressure increased
increased from 1100 to 1200 rev/min and decreased
Maximum peak pressure was developed
torque was produced.
at 1100 rev/min
as the speed was increased
further.
at 1200 rev/min, the engine speed at which peak
LPP also decreased
with increasing
engine speed (Table 5). LPP
was in the range of 10.5 to 11 “CA ATDC for all fuel blends and was
reduced to 3 to 5 “CA ATDC as engine speed increased
curve
as engine speed
to 1900 rev/min.
The pressure
shapes for all fuel blends at all engine speeds were similar to that of No.2 diesel
fuel, which
had peak pressures
of 15 and 14 MPa at peak torque
and rated speed,
At 1200 rev/min engine speed, the peak pressure for 80:20,70:30
and 60:40% (v/v)
respectively.
blends of diesel:methyl
tallowate
were all within 2% of that for No.2 diesel fuel. The LPP
for the 80:20, 70:30 and 60:40 “/“(v/v)
and 10.8 “CA ATDC, respectively,
Replacing
reduced
the methyl tallowate
the peak pressure
consistent
with the reductions
diesel fuel (Ali et al., 1995a).
blends of diesel:methyl
as compared
tallowate
to 10.4 “CA ATDC for No.2 diesel fuel.
in the above blends with fuel ethanol and methyl soyate
by as much as 6.5%.
Reductions
in peak pressure
in the energy contents of the blends as compared
Ali et al. (1995b)
also reported a significant
power output when diesel and methyl tallowate were blended with ethanol.
blends were not markedly
torque
conditions,
affected.
A comparison
for No.2 diesel fuel showed
65:35 % (v/v) methyl tallowate:ethanoI
% of the methyl tallowate
were 10.6, 10.8
of peak pressure,
in
LPP with these
developed
an 8.86 % drop in peak pressure
with methyl soyate.
to No.2
reduction
blend and a 6.93 % drop in peak pressure
was replaced
were
at peak
for the
when 50
The LPP’s of these blends
8
were 10.2 and 10.4 “CA ATE,
respectively.
At rated engine speed of 1800 rev/min, the peak pressures
60:40%
(v/v) diesehmethyl
tallowate
for 80:20, 70:30 and
blends were within 1% of that for No.2 diesel fuet.
The LPP for the 80:20 and 70:30 blends was 7.0 “CA ATDC; the same as observed
No.2 diesel fuel. The LPP for the 60:40 blend was 7.6 “CA ATDC.
When the methyl
tallowate was replaced by fuel ethanol and methyl soyate the peak pressure
by as much as 3.85% except in the cases of the 80:13:7%
tallowate:ethanol
soyate:ethanol,
and the 80:6.5:6.5:7%
in which
was increased
respectively.
LPP’s for all fuel blends were not significantly
diesel
The increase
fuel.
diesehmethyl tallowate:methyl
in peak pressure
soyate:ethanol
tallowate:methyl
by 0.55%
different
% (v/v) blend
of
was expected as the energy content of this
by Ali et al. (1995b).
A comparison of No.2 diesel fuel with a 65:35 % (v/v) methyl tallowate:ethanol
% (v/v) methyl tallowate:methyl
and 4.87%,
from that for No.2
with the 80:6.5:6.5:7
blend was more than that of the 80:13:7 % (v/v) blend as reported
a 32.5:32.5:35
was reduced
(v/v) blend of diesel:methyl
(v/v) blend of diesel:methyl
the peak pressure
for
soyate:ethanol
blend and
showed that for both fuels
peak power dropped by 9.89 % and LPP increased to 9.2 “CA ATDC as compared
to 7.2
“CA ATDC for No.2 diesel fuel.
Similar trends were observed at all other engine speeds.
of the peak pressures
for the blends as compared
that since the peak pressures
tallowate:ethanol
to No. 2 diesel fuel, it was concluded
were less than that for No.2 diesel fuel, there should have
been no effect on engine durability.
diesel:methyl
Looking at the magnitude
In two cases, i.e. with the 80:13:7 % (v/v) blend of
and the 80:6.5:6,5:7
% (v/v)
blend
of dieselmethyl
9
tallowate:methyl
soyate:ethanol,
the magnitudes
of the increases were too small to cause any problem
combustion
Indicated
related to knock,
or partial burn with engine performance.
Mean Effective
the cycles, calculated
defined
the peak pressures were higher than No.2 diesel fuel, but
The indicated
using SuperFlow
as the indicated
expansion
Pressure:
average
during the compression
and expansion
output of the engine, differences
Software,
constant
stroke which will produce
mean effective
are presented
pressure
exerted
the same amount
strokes.
pressures
(IMEP) of
in Table 6.
IMEP is
on the piston during
the
of work as the actual pressure
Since the IMEP is related to the power
in the IMEP can be compared
with differences
in power
output at a given engine speed.
At 1200 rev/min
engine speed, the IMEP values for the 80:20, 70:30 and 60:40%
(v/v) blends of dieseLmethyl tallowate were within 2.5% of that for No.2 diesel fuel. These
results
were consistent
with the peak pressure
results with the same blends.
reduction
in IMEP values was as much as 4.28% when part of the methyl tallowate
replaced
with ethanol and methyl soyate.
A comparison
(v/v) blend of methyl tallowate:methyl
was
of IMEP values at peak torque
conditions for No.2 diesel fuel, the 65135% (v/v) blend of methyl tallowate:ethanol
32.5:32.5:35%
The
soyate:ethanol
showed
andthe
11.5% and
9.15% drops in JMEP values, respectively.
At rated speed of 1800 rev/min, the IMEP values for the 80:20, 70:30 and 60:40%
(v/v)
blends were all within 1% of that for No.2 diesel fuel. Once again when methyl
tallowate
was replaced
by fuel ethanol and methyl soyate, the reduction
much as 4.5%. Ali et al. (1995c) reported
that for each 10 % replacement
in IMEP was as
of diesel fuel
10
with methyl tallowate:ethanol
there was a 1 .l % reduction in power output at rated engine
speed. The reductions in the IMEP values correlated
well with power reductions
reported
by Ali et al. (1995c), except for the 80 % blend which showed a 1.07% IMEP decrease
instead of an expected
2.2 % decrease.
(v/v) methyl tallowate:ethanol
and 32X1:32.5:35%
showed that the IMEP values decreased
Derivative
of Pressure
derivative
of the pressures
of the maximum
manufacturer
of No.2 diesel fuel with 65:35%
methyl tallowate:methyl
soyate:ethanol
by 16.6 and 15.2%, respectively.
with respect to Crank Angle : This analysis, which is simply the
shown in Fig. 1, indicates how rapidly pressure
helps identify potentially damaging
value
A comparison
combustion
rate of pressure
conditions.
After correlating
rise with the engine
hardware,
changes and
the observed
an engine
can establish a limiting maximum value which will ensure acceptable
engine
life.
The values of the peak rate of change of pressure in the engine and their crank
angle locations for all fuel blends at different
Representative
graphs showing the development
engine speeds are presented
of change in pressure with CA for engine
speed at peak torque and rated speed are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.
in the combustion
correspond
strokes at which the derivatives
to the points of maximum
pressure
in Table 7.
The points
were equal to zero in Figs. 3 and 4
indicated in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
Table 7 shows that in-cylinder pressure change was maximum at an engine speed
of 1100 rev/min and decreased
as engine speed was increased to 1200 rev/min and then
increased
as engine speed was further
maximum
power was produced.
increased
Further increasing
to 1600 rev/min,
the speed at which
engine speed again decreased
the
11
peak value of pressure change.
The location of maximum pressure
shifted from 0.0 to 0.4 “CA ATDC to 13 to 13.6 “CA BTDC.
change
change with CA also
The shapes of all pressure
curves were the same as that for No.2 diesel fuel. No.2 diesel fuel had a peak
changes
of pressure
of 361 kPa, 385 kPa, and 374 kPa at engine
1600 rev/min and at rated engine
speed of 1800 rev/min,
speeds of 1200 and
respectively.
The locations
shifted from 0.2 “CA ATDC to 13.6 “CA BTDC and 13.8 “CA BTDC at the above engine
speeds, respectively.
At 1200 rev/min engine speed, peak values of change in pressure
for the 80:20,70:30
and 60:40% (v/v) blends of diesel:methyl
that for No.2 diesel fuel.
before
by fuel ethanol
the peak values of change in pressure
with CA increased
significantly
A comparison
methyl
their locations.
tallowate:ethanol
soyate:ethanol
showed
and 2.22 %, respectively,
and 32.5:32.5:35
increases
% (v/v)
by as much as 3.88% without
of No.2 diesel with 65:35 % (v/v)
blend of methyl
and changes
tallowate:methyl
with CA of 3.88
in location to 0.0 “CA TDC for both blends.
where peak power was produced,
of change in pressure was maximum within the operating
rev/min.
and methyl soyate,
in peak values of change in pressure
At an engine speed of 1600 rev/min,
value
11.2 “CA
and 2.4 “CA BTDC for 80:20, 70:30 and 60:40 blends,
When the methyl tallowate was replaced
affecting
were within 2% of
The location of these points were 0.2 “CA ATDC,
top dead center (BTDC)
respectively.
tallowate
with crank angle
the peak
range of 1200 to 1800
The peak values of change in pressure for 80:20, 70:30 and 60:40% (v/v) blends
of diesel:methyl
tallowate
were within 1.55% of that for No.2 diesel fuel. Their locations
were more or less the same as that for diesel fuel. When methyl tallowate
was replaced
12
by fuel ethanol and methyl soyate the reduction
in peak values was as much as to 6.75%.
Their locations were the same as that for diesel fuel. A comparison
the 65:35 % (v/v) blend of methyl tallowate:ethanoI
methyl tallowate:methyl
soyate:ethanoI
peak value of change in pressure
of No.2 diesel fuel with
and the 32.5:32.5:35
% (v/v) blend of
showed that there was an 11.4 % decrease
with CA for both blends.
in the
Once again, the locations of
the peak value for both blends were 13.6 “CA BTDC, the same as for diesel fuel.
At rated engine speed of 1800 rev/min, the peak values of change in pressure
CA for the 80:20, 70:30 and 60:40 % (v/v) blends of diesel:methyl
1.5% of that of No.2 diesel fuel.
The locations of the peak changes
shifted to 14.6, 14.4 and 14.0 “CA BTDC, respectively as compared
No.2 diesel fuel. When methyl tallowate
comparison of No.2 diesel with 65:35 % (v/v) methyl tallowate:ethanoI
soyate:ethanol
peak value of change in pressure
in pressure
were
and methyl soyate,
by as much as 5.88%.
of the peak change in pressure for all three fuel blends were around
were within
to 13.8 “CA BTDC for
was replaced by fuel ethanol
the values of change in pressure with CA decreased
(v/v) methyl tallowate:methyl
tallowate
with
The locations
14.2 “CA BTDC.
and 32.5:32.5:35%
showed that there was 12.3 % decrease
with CA for both blends.
A
in
The location of the peak
change in pressure for both blends was 14 “CA BTDC.
Looking at the performance
of the engine in terms of peak value change in pressure
with CA, it can be concluded that there were minor differences in the peak values.
cases, the peak value of change
in pressure
In most
were less than that for No.2 diesel fuel.
These small differences in the rate of change in pressure should have no long term effect
on engine performance,
engine wear and knock.
13
CONCLUSIONS
Engine
cycle analysis
was conducted
to analyze
in-cylinder
estimate peak cylinder pressure and rate of change of pressure.
pressure
Peak cylinder pressures
for each fuel blend at all engine speeds were lower than the peak pressure
diesel
fuel except at 1800 rev/min
diesel:methyl
tallowate:ethanol
tallowate:methyl
engine
and
soyate:ethanol.
speed with the 80:13:7
80:6.5:6.5:7
data to
% (v/v)
blend
These points peak pressures
were
with No.2
% (v/v)
of
blend
of
diesel:methyl
0.55
and
4.87
%
higher than diesel fuel. These increases were not high enough to cause any cylinder and
piston damage,
due to over pressure
conditions.
Indicated
mean effective
pressures
(IMEP) for all fuel blends and engine speeds were less than the IMEP for No.2 diesel fuel.
The differences
engine.
in IMEP values
The maximum
corresponded
rate of pressure
maximum rate of pressure
with differences
in power output of the
rise for most fuel blends were less than the
rise for No.2 diesel fuel. In some cases, the maximum
rate of
pressure rise was higher than diesel fuel but it was never more than 5 %. The location of
the maximum pressure
rise was close to the location of maximum
pressure rise for No.2
diesel fuel.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors
Technician,
operation,
Nebraska
Power
data collection
Systems Engineering
Lab,
gratefully
University
acknowledge
Laboratory,
the contributions
University
of Kevin G. Johnson,
of Nebraska-Lincoln
and analysis and Dr. Louis Leviticus,
and Engineer-in-Charge
of Nebraska-Lincoln
for making
Professor
of test and development,
for engine
of Biological
Nebraska
the power testing laboratory
Lab
Power
available.
14
REFERENCES
Ali, Y., Eskridge, K.M. and Hanna, M.A. 1995a. Testing of alternative diesel fuel from
Bioresource
tallow and soybean oil in Cummins Nl4-410
diesel engine.
Technology (accepted).
Ali, Y., Hanna, M.A. and Cuppett,
ester. JAOCS (accepted).
S.L. 1995b.
Fuel properties
of tallow and soybean
oil
Ali, Y., Hanna, M.A. and Borg, J.E. 1995c. Optimization of diesel:methyl tallowate:ethanol
blend for reducing emissions from diesel engine.
Bioresource
Technology
(accepted).
Barbella, R. Bertoli, C. Ciajolo, A. D’Anna, A. and Masi, S. 1989. In-cylinder
high molecular weight hydrocarbons from a 0.1. light duty diesel engine.
No. 890437. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
sampling of
SAE paper
Kittelson, D.B., Pipho, M.J., Ambs, J.L. and Luo, L. 1988. In-cylinder measurements
of
soot production in a direct injection diesel engine. SAE paper No. 880344. Society
of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
Schumacher, LG., Borgeft, S.C. and Hires, W.G., Spurfing, C., Humphrey, J.K. and Fink,
J. 1993. Fueling diesel engines with esterified soybean oil - project update. ASAE
paper No. MC93- 10 1. American Society of Agticdturai Engineers, St. Joseph, MI
49085.
15
‘able 1. Engine Specificati
ns.
Cummins N14-410
diesel engine
Specifications
Type of engine
6 cylinder, Q-stroke, direct injection
Power output, kW
(@ Rated engine speed)
306
Bore x stroke
140 mm x 152 mm
Displacement
14 litres
Compression
ratio
16.3:1
Valves per cylinder
4
Aspiration
Turbocharged
Turbocharger
Holsett type BHT 3B
& charge air cooler
16
Table 2 : Pressure
Piezoelectric
transducer,
Pressure
charge
and shaft encoder
amplifier
specifications.
Transducer
AVL QH32C
Model
Dynamic measuring
Zherload,
range, (FSO), MPa
0 - 20
30
MPa
Sensitivity, pCNPa*
2.673
Linearity, % FSO
< * 0.2
IMEP reproducibility,
% error
Lifetime, cycles to failure
< 2.0
>3XlO’
Charge Amplifier
Model
KISTLER
5004
Type
Dual Mode
Linearity, % FSO
< f 0.05
Scale setting
5 user selectable
settings
Shaft Encoder
Model
8225-3600-CDSthKZ
Type
Optical
Signal pulse/revolution
3600
Index pulse/revolution
1
Coulomb
:
17
T:able 3. Fuel Blends
Blend
number
Tested.
No. 2
Diesel Fuel
%
Methyl
Tallowate
%
Methyl
Soyate
%
Ethanol
%
1
100
0
0
0
2
80
20
0
0
3
70
30
0
0
4
60
40
0
0
5
80
13
0
7
6
70
19.5
0
10.5
7
60
26
0
14
8
80
6.5
6.5
7
9
70
9.75
9.75
10.5
10
60
13
13
13
11
0
65
0
35
12
0
32.5
32.5
35
18
Table 4. Engine Speeds
Fuel Blend.
Engine Speed
rev/min
and Loads Used for Each
Load
%
1800
1800
1800
1800
1200
1200
1200
Idle
1100
1400
1600
1900
100
19
Table 5 : Peak pressure
developed
for each fuel blend
the peak pressu# with respect to TDC.
Fuelf3lends'
ressure a lath spee (@Crank
speeds
and location of
ngle ATD’
MPa
1100
rev/min
1200.
rev/min
1400
rev/min
1600
rev/min
1800
rev/m in
1900
rev/min
(100 :O)
14.6
(11.0)
15.2
(10.4)
15.1
(9.6)
15.0
03.4
13.9
(7.2)
12.4
(3-4)
D:MT
(80 :20)
14.6
(11.0)
15.1
(10.6)
15.1
(9.8)
15.0
(9.0)
13.8
(7.2)
12.3
(4-D)
D:MT
(70.30)
14.5
(10.8)
15.0
(10.8)
15.0
(9.8)
14.9
v3.8)
13.8
(7-2)
12.4
(4-6)
D:MT
(60 :40)
14.5
(10.8)
14.9
(10.8)
15.0
(9.8)
14.8
P3-8)
13.8
(7.6)
12.0
V-6)
14.5
No.2 diesel fuel
D:MT:E
(80:13:7)
(11.0)
15.1
(10.4)
15.1
(9.8)
115.0
w3)
14.0
(7.4)
12.3
(3.8)
D:MT:E
14.5
(10.8)
14.9
(10.4)
15.1
(9.8)
15.0
W)
14.0
(72)
12.3
(3-8)
14.1
(10.8)
14.7
(10.4)
14.7
(9.8)
14.5
(9.0)
13.4
(7.8)
13.3
(7.8)
13.6
(10.4)
14.2
(11.0)
14.8
(10.6)
14.8
(10.0)
14.6
(9-O)
13.4
(7-8)
14.1
(10.8)
14.7
(10.4)
14.5
(10.0)
14.3
(9-a
13.4
(7.8)
11.7
(4-6)
(60:13:13:14)
14.1
(10.8)
14.7
(10.4)
14.6
(10.0)
14.4
(9.0)
13.4
(7-8)
11.7
(4.6)
MT:E
(65.35)
13.2
(10.2)
13.9
(10.2)
15.1
(9.6)
15.0
(83)
125
P-3
11.0
(5.8)
MT:MS:E
13.6
(10.4)
14.2
(10.4)
14.0
(10.0)
13.8
(g-61
125
(92)
11.0
(5.8)
(70 : 19.5 : 10.5)
D:MT:E
(60:26:14)
D:MT:MS:E
(80 : 6.5 : 6.5 :7)
D:MT:MS:E
(70 :9.75 :9.75 : 10.5)
D:MT:MS:E
(32.5 :32.5 :35)
l
Peak
at different
D = No.2 diesel fuel
MT = Methyl tallowate
MS = Methylsoyate
E = Ethanol
20
Table
6 : Indicated
mean
effective
pressure
developed
for each
fuel
blend
at different
----_I-
speeos.
Fuel Blends’
Indicated mean effective pressure at different speed, MPa
1100
rev/m in
1200
rev/m in
1400
rev/m in
1600
rev/min
1800
rev/min
1900
rev/m in
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.6
D:MT
(80 : 20)
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.6
D:MT
(70 : 30)
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.6
D:MT
(60 : 40)
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.5
D:MT:E
(80:13:7)
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.5
D:MT:E
(70 : 19.5 : 10.5)
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.5
D:MT:E
(60:26:14)
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.8
NA
D:MT:MS:E
(80 : 6.5 : 6.5 : 7)
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
118
1.5
D:MT:MS:E
(70 : 9.75 : 9.75 : 10.5)
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.5
D:MT:MS:E
(60: 13 : 13 : 14)
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.5
MT:E
(65 : 35)
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.3
MT:MS:E
(32.5 : 32.5 : 35)
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.3
No.2 diesel fuel
(100 : 0)
* D = No.2 Diesel fuel
MT = Methyl tallowate
MS = Methyl soyate
E = Ethanol
21
Table 7 : Peak rate of pressure
change with respect to crank angle for each fuel blend
different speeds ;a
nd
locationof
the peak pressure change with respect to 7DC.
II
Fuel Blends’
Rate of pressure change at each speed, MPa
T
rankAngl1
3TDCorr
-DC)
(@
l
1100
rev/min
1200
rev/min
1400
rev/min
1600
rev/min
1800
rev/min
1900
rev/m in
0.425
(-1.0)
0.36
(0.2)
0.38
(-12.0)
0.39
(-13.6)
0.37
(-13.8)
0.34
(-13.6)
0.38
(-0.4)
0.36
(0.2)
0.38
(-12.2)
0.38
(-13.6)
0.37
(-14.6)
0.35
(-13.8)
0.38
(0-O)
0.36
(-11.2)
0.38
(-12.2)
0.38
(-132)
0.37
(-14.4)
0.35
(-13.8)
0.39
(-1 .O)
0.36
(-2.4)
.03a
(-12.2)
0.38
(-13.4)
0.37
(-14.0)
0.35
(-13.4)
0.40
(43.8)
0.37
(0.4
0.37
(-11.8)
0.38
(-13.6)
0.38
(-14.2)
0.35
(-13.6)
0.40
(-0-8)
0.37
(0.4)
0.37
(-11.8)
0.38
(-13.6)
0.37
(-14.2)
0.35
(-13.6)
0.38
(4.4)
0.37
(O-4)
0.35
(-11 .O)
0.37
(-13.6)
0.36
(-14.2)
0.35
(-14.0)
D:MT:MS:E
0.38
t-O-6)
0.37
(0.4)
0.36
(-11.4)
0.37
(-13.6)
0.36
(-14.2)
0.34
(-13.6)
D:MT:MS:E
(70 : 9.75 : 9.75 : 10.5)
0.41
(4.2)
0.37
(0.4)
0.35
(-13.8)
0.36
(-13.6)
0.35
(-13.8)
0.33
(-13.6)
D:MT:MS:E
0.41
(-0.2)
0.36
(O-6)
0.35
(-13.8)
0.36
(-13.6)
0.36
(-13.8)
0.33
(-13.4)
0.40
(-0.2)
0.37
VW
0.3343
(-13.4)
0.34
(-13.6)
0.33
(-14.0)
0.31
(-13.4)
0.40
(-0.4)
0.37
(0.0)
0.33
(-13.4)
0.33
(-14.0)
0.31
(-13.4)
D = No.2 diesel fuel
MT= Methyl tallowate
MS = Methylsoyate
E = Ethanol
at
22
List of Figures
Fig.1 : Overlay of pressure
methyl tallowate:ethanol
curves for No.2 diesel fuel and a blend of 65:35% (v/v)
at peak torque (graph in box shows the peak pressure
values for all fuel blends used).
Fig.2 : Overlay of pressure
methyl tallowate:ethanoI
curves for No.2 diesel fuel and a blend of 65:35% (v/v)
at rated engine speed (graph
in box shows the peak
pressure values for all fuel blends used).
Fig. 3 : Overlay
of rate of pressure
curves for No.2 diesel fuel and a blend of
65:35*/A (v/v) methyl tallowate:ethanol
at peak torque.
Fig. 4 : Overlay
curves for No.2 diesel fuel and a biend of
of rate of pressure
65135% (v/v) methyl tailowate:ethanol
at rated engine speed.
16
No.2
Diesel
fuel
I
8
MT I Methyl
Tallowate,
( 65:35 MTE
E = Elhenol
I
---
- 270
- 180
-a
- 90
0
90
Crank Angle Referenced @ TDC, degrees
180
270
360
edm
%JllSSaJd
1200 rev/min
No.2 Diesel
fuel
65 : 35 MT:E
..... ..._mee.
5
$ - 0.1
..-3
?I
Q - 0.2
- 0.3
- 60
- 30
-15
0
15
30
Crank Angle Referenced @ TDC, degrees
45
60
1800 rev/ml n
No.2 Diesel
0.2 -
fuel
65 : 35 MT:E
. .......-....
\\
“o-O.1
*-!s
5
*z - 0.2
r3
- 0.3
- 90
- 75
- 60
- 45
- 30
- 15
0
15
30
Crank Angle Referenced @ TDC, degrees
45
60
75
90