Comparative study on alcohol–gasoline and gasoline–alcohol Dual-Fuel Spark Ignition (DFSI) combustion for engine particle number (PN) reduction

Liu, Hui; Wang, Zhi; Yan, Linbo; Xiang, Shouzhi; Wang, Jianxin; Fatouraie, Mohammad

doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2015.06.059

Cited by 59 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the engine is working at the same load, a significant reduction of the PN distribution of the particles can be observed for the ethanol blends equated to gasoline (HE0). The results here are consistent with the PN distribution results reported in previous publications [43][44][45][46][47][48][49]62]. There are many causes leading to a decrease of the PN in the ethanol blends; compared with gasoline fuel, hydrous ethanol and anhydrous ethanol have no aromatic content, a higher laminar flame propagation speed, and a higher percentage of oxygen content.…”

Section: Pm Emission Characteristicssupporting

confidence: 92%

Particulate Matter and Gaseous Emission of Hydrous Ethanol Gasoline Blends Fuel in a Port Injection Gasoline Engine

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The industrialization that increases day by day needs more and more power/fuel sources that are commonly available, abundant, renewable, and environmentally friendly. Recently, nearly all of the cities in China (PRC) have been influenced by haze. However, the pollutants from automobiles have always been seriously considered to be the main contamination causes of the haze and that influence human health. This study concerns the impact of hydrous ethanol on in-cylinder pressure, particulate matter (PM), and gaseous emissions (oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) and unburned hydrocarbon (HC)) from a port fuel injection (PFI) gasoline engine. Tests were conducted on a four-cylinder port injection gasoline engine at different engine loads at an engine speed of 2000 rev/min for commercial gasoline, hydrous ethanol-gasoline blends (10% and 20% hydrous ethanol by volume), and an anhydrous ethanol-gasoline blend (20% anhydrous ethanol by volume). The results show that the peak in-cylinder pressure with the use of gasoline was the highest compared with the hydrous ethanol and anhydrous ethanol blends. Compared with the anhydrous ethanol blend, the hydrous ethanol blends performed well at a high load condition, equivalent to a low load. In addition, the total particulate number (PN) declines with an increase in engine operating loads for all of the fuels tested. The outcome of this study is an important reduction in PM number, mass emissions, and mean diameters of particles as the use of hydrous ethanol blends increases, while the form of the particulate size distribution remains the same. Furthermore, the NO x emission is raised with a rise in engine load, and NO x and HC emissions are reduced with the use of hydrous ethanol and anhydrous ethanol blend as equated with pure gasoline. Moreover, the correlation between the total particle number against NO x and HC has been found; the number of particles increases when the NO x emission decreases, and the opposite trend is exhibited for the HC emission. Therefore, it can be concluded that hydrous ethanol blends look to be a good selection for PM, NO x , and HC reduction for gasoline engines.

show abstract

Section: Pm Emission Characteristicssupporting

confidence: 92%

Particulate Matter and Gaseous Emission of Hydrous Ethanol Gasoline Blends Fuel in a Port Injection Gasoline Engine

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At rich condition (Figure 14), gasoline provides the highest PN emissions, while E85 DF and E85 mix a significantly lower value over the entire dimensional range. The highest accumulation peak (particles with diameter higher than 100 nm) is reached by E85 DF, suggesting the presence of local rich regions which promote solid particle formation [23]. For all the fuels, more than 95% of particles have the diameter lower than 70 nm, and more than 75% are smaller than 40 nm.…”

Section: Effects Of Ethanol-gasoline Injection Mode On Pn and Pm1 Emimentioning

confidence: 93%

Experimental Comparative Study on Performance and Emissions of E85 Adopting Different Injection Approaches in a Turbocharged PFI SI Engine

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the effects of ethanol and gasoline injection mode on the combustion performance and exhaust emissions of a twin cylinder port fuel injection (PFI) spark ignition (SI) engine. Generally, when using gasoline–ethanol blends, alcohol and gasoline are externally mixed with a specified blending ratio. In this activity, ethanol and gasoline were supplied into the intake manifold into two different ways: through two separated low pressure fuel injection systems (Dual-Fuel, DF) and in a blend (mix). The ratio between ethanol and gasoline was fixed at 0.85 by volume (E85). The initial reference conditions were set running the engine with full gasoline at the knock limited spark advance boundary, according to the standard engine calibration. Then E85 was injected and a spark timing sweep was carried out at rich, stoichiometric, and lean conditions. Engine performance and gaseous and particle exhaust emissions were measured. Adding ethanol could remove over-fueling with an increase in thermal efficiency without engine load penalties. Both ethanol and charge leaning resulted in a lowering of CO, HC, and PN emissions. DF injection promoted a faster evaporation of gasoline than in blend, shortening the combustion duration with a slight increase in THC and PN emissions compared to the mix mode.

show abstract

“…However, as it is a lambda=1 technology, there is no reason why existing aftertreatment would not be able to deal with that. Concerning particle emissions, results from testing on an engine employing both a PFI and a DI system, running one fueling system on gasoline and the other on methanol or ethanol, showed up to 95% reduction in PN emissions, with the highest reductions obtained when the alcohol was introduced using the DI system [195] (which also gave the highest efficiency benefits).…”

Section: Octane On Demandmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methanol as a fuel for internal combustion engines

Verhelst

Turner

Sileghem

et al. 2019

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science

729

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transportation of people and goods largely relies on the use of fossil hydrocarbons, contributing to global warming and problems with local air quality. There are a number of alternatives to fossil fuels that can avoid a net carbon emission and can also decrease pollutant emissions. However, many have significant difficulty in competing with fossil fuels due to either limited availability, limited energy density, high cost, or a combination of these. Methanol (CH 3 OH) is one of these alternatives, which was demonstrated in large fleet trials during the 1980s and 1990s, and is currently again being introduced in various places and applications. It can be produced from fossil fuels, but also from biomass and from renewable energy sources in carbon capture and utilization schemes. It can be used in pure form or as a blend component, in internal combustion engines (ICEs) or in direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs). These features added to the fact it is a liquid fuel, making it an efficient way of storing and distributing energy, make it stand out as one of the most attractive scalable alternatives. This review focuses on the use of methanol as a pure fuel or blend component for ICEs. First, we introduce methanol historically, briefly introduce the various methods for its production, and summarize health and safety of using methanol as a fuel. Then, we focus on its use as a fuel for ICEs. The current data on the physical and chemical properties relevant for ICEs are reviewed, highlighting the differences with fuels such as ethanol and gasoline. These are then related to the research reported on the behaviour of methanol and methanol blends in spark ignition and compression ignition engines. Many of the properties of methanol that are significantly different from those of for example gasoline (such as its high heat of vaporization) lead to advantages as well as challenges. Both are extensively discussed. Methanol's performance, in terms of power output, peak and part load efficiency, and emissions formation is summarized, for so-called flex-fuel engines

show abstract

Comparative study on alcohol–gasoline and gasoline–alcohol Dual-Fuel Spark Ignition (DFSI) combustion for engine particle number (PN) reduction

Cited by 59 publications

References 33 publications

Particulate Matter and Gaseous Emission of Hydrous Ethanol Gasoline Blends Fuel in a Port Injection Gasoline Engine

Particulate Matter and Gaseous Emission of Hydrous Ethanol Gasoline Blends Fuel in a Port Injection Gasoline Engine

Experimental Comparative Study on Performance and Emissions of E85 Adopting Different Injection Approaches in a Turbocharged PFI SI Engine

Methanol as a fuel for internal combustion engines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About