Original Article

Proc IMechE Part D:

J Automobile Engineering
2016, Vol. 230(4) 527–541
Ethanol–diesel premixed charge Ó IMechE 2015
Reprints and permissions:
compression ignition to achieve clean sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0954407015589870

combustion under high loads pid.sagepub.com

Shui Yu and Ming Zheng

Abstract
Ethanol–diesel dual-fuel premixed charge compression ignition combustion was investigated in a diesel engine with a
compression ratio of 18.2:1, where the ethanol was delivered via port fuel injection and the diesel was injected through
common-rail high-pressure direct injection. The paper presents the test results highlighting the effect of the fuel ratio,
the exhaust gas recirculation and the diesel start of injection on the dual-fuel combustion and the emissions from
medium to high loads. The results showed that the usage of ethanol can effectively suppress the nitrogen oxide emis-
sions and the soot emissions with less aggressive exhaust gas recirculation levels than with diesel-only low-temperature
combustion. The combustion phasing was responsive to the in-cylinder diesel injection over a wide range of timings. The
dual-fuel operation load was increased to an indicated mean effective pressure of 18 bar (nearly the full load of the test
engine), with a boost intake pressure of up to 2.5 bar and the ethanol ratio increased to about 0.9. The high-load pre-
mixed charge compression ignition was realized through adequate control of the exhaust gas recirculation level, the
intake boost pressure, the injection pressure, the injection scheduling and the fuel ratio. The challenges and the
approaches to suppress the nitrogen oxide emissions and the soot emissions simultaneously at a high load were demon-
strated. The nitrogen oxide level was constrained to within 0.2 g/kW h and the soot level was simultaneously below
0.01g/kW h at a stable operation load with an indicated mean effective pressure of 16 bar and a moderate pressure rise
rate.

Keywords
Ethanol, dual-fuel operation, low-temperature combustion, ultra-low emissions, high load

Date received: 10 February 2015; accepted: 29 April 2015

Introduction octane number. On the other hand, it is not easy for

Among the regulated pollutants of compression igni-
tion engines, total hydrocarbon (THC) and carbon
monoxide (CO) are relatively easy to remove in after-
treatment systems because of the oxygen (O2) abun-
dance in the exhaust. Reductions in the nitrogen oxide
(NOx) emissions and the soot emissions have attracted
major efforts in diesel emission control. Previous
empirical work has indicated that low-temperature
combustion (LTC), with in-cylinder mixture homogene-
ity enhanced and reactivity suppressed, is able to lower
simultaneously the in-cylinder NOx emissions and the
soot emissions.1–4 However, it is fairly challenging for a
single practical fuel to control opportunely the in-
cylinder homogeneity and the reactivity to achieve con-
trollable LTC especially under high-load conditions. A
high-volatility fuel such as gasoline or ethanol can be
easily homogenized via port injection, and yet it is diffi-
cult for it to be compression ignited owing to the high
diesel fuel to produce a homogeneous in-cylinder mix-
ture because of the low volatility; nevertheless, once the
in-cylinder homogeneity is improved by means of
enhanced gas motion and/or prolonged ignition delay
(ID), the high reactivity can cause early autoignition,
resulting in an undesired high pressure rise rate, and
even severe damage to the engine components.
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is the principal
method used in modern diesel engines for reducing the
NOx emissions.5 To achieve LTC, EGR is typically
Department of Mechanical, Automotive and Materials Engineering,
University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding author:
Ming Zheng, Department of Mechanical, Automotive and Materials
Engineering, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor,
Ontario, N9B3P4, Canada.
Email: mzheng@uwindsor.ca

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016

528
applied to lower the mixture reactivity, thereby decreas-
ing the combustion temperature and prolonging the
ID.2, 3 The reduced combustion temperature inhibits
NOx formation while the enhanced mixing weakens the
tendency for soot formation by avoiding localized stoi-
chiometric and/or rich burning, so that ultra-low levels
of NOx and soot can be concurrently achieved. The
EGR-enabled LTC relies on a large amount of EGR
(typically 50–70%) to prevent the mixture from com-
bustion before it is appropriately mixed. The highly
diluted mixture (an intake O2 concentration of 8–12%)
makes the combustion sensitive to small changes in the
EGR. As the air–fuel mixture is typically close to the
combustible limit at such a high level of dilution, a
slight increase in the EGR (1–2%) cause the combus-
tion stability to deteriorate rapidly, often resulting in
misfire. Conversely, a sharp increase in the soot emis-
sions may occur for a small decrease in the EGR levels.
Thus, single-injection EGR-enabled LTC requires very
tight control on the EGR rates or the intake O2 concen-
trations.6 To compensate the power deficiency attrib-
uted to EGR, the intake pressure is typically boosted to
admit sufficient O2. However, the consequently
increased cylinder pressure limits the range of intake
pressure boosting for load extension.7 Furthermore, the
inability to separate the injection event from the com-
bustion process when the fuelling quantity increases,
owing to the prolonged fuel delivery duration and the
insufficient time available for thorough mixing, restricts
the soot-free operation load range.8, 9 Thus, even with
a precise EGR adjustment and adequate intake boost
pressure control, the diesel LTC is typically limited to
low-load to medium-load ranges.
To overcome the LTC implementation challenges in
terms of the mixture preparation, combustion control
and load range extension, a dual-fuel premixed charge
compression ignition (PCCI) combustion strategy was
proposed. The dual-fuel strategy delivers one volatile
and relatively less reactive fuel via port fuel injection
(PFI) to form a premixed in-cylinder charge prevented
from compression autoignition, while it employs direct-
injection (DI) diesel fuel to ignite the mixture at the
desired injection timing. The primary advantage of the
dual-fuel strategy is that the premixed mixture exhibits
a relatively controllable combustion rate to provide the
potential to extend the LTC high-load limit. The dual-
fuel combustion phasing can be modulated through
timely ignition control by diesel DI to stabilize the
combustion at extended loads. The two fuels (gasoline
and diesel) in the dual-fuel combustion mode have been
studied with load levels ranging from low to high.10–14
The results have showed the promising ability to sup-
press simultaneously the NOx emissions and the soot
emissions while achieving a very high thermal effi-
ciency. Ethanol, a renewable alternative fuel, which has
a high octane number (110–115) and a low cetane num-
ber (8–11), offers a greater potential than gasoline in
terms of the high-load extension capacity when it
applies to the dual-fuel strategy. In addition, the fuel-
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016
Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 230(4)
Table 1. Specifications of the test engine.
Engine Four-cylinder
four-stroke Ford
Duratorq Puma
Displacement (l) 1.998
Bore (mm) 86
Stroke (mm) 86
Compression ratio 18.2:1
Maximum cylinder pressure (bar) 180
Maximum direct-injection pressure (bar) 1600
Port-fuel-injection pressure (bar) 4
borne oxygen in ethanol may inhibit soot formation.15
Dual-fuel ethanol–diesel combustion has also been
reported under a wide range of load levels.16–19 Both a
gasoline–diesel dual-fuel strategy13 and an ethanol–
diesel dual-fuel strategy19 have been demonstrated
under high loads with the indicated mean effective pres-
sure (IMEP) above 18 bar. However, there are few
empirical data available in the literatures for the high-
load operation with an NOx level below 0.2 g/kW h
and simultaneously a soot level lower than 0.01 g/kW
h, which represent the most stringent current emission
regulations.
In this paper, ethanol–diesel dual-fuel PCCI com-
bustion was investigated extensively in a high-compres-
sion-ratio diesel engine operating at medium to high
loads. The paper presents the empirical results in evalu-
ating the effects of the fuel ratio, the EGR and the die-
sel start of injection (SOI) on the dual-fuel combustion
characteristics and the emissions. The challenges and
approaches to extend the LTC high-load limit and
simultaneous suppression of the NOx emissions and the
soot emissions at high loads are demonstrated.
Experimental set-ups
A schematic diagram of the engine test set-up is illu-
strated in Figure 1. The four-cylinder diesel engine (the
specifications are given in Table 1) was configured to
perform single-cylinder research with an eddy current
dynamometer. Three cylinders were operated in diesel-
only high-temperature combustion at low loads to
stabilize the engine. The remaining cylinder was com-
prehensively instrumented for the ethanol–diesel dual-
fuel experiments. In addition, the intake system and the
exhaust system of this cylinder were separated from
those of the other three cylinders. The intake boost
pressure was simulated by dry and clean compressed
air and precisely controlled by a pressure regulator.
The EGR ratio was controlled with the combination of
the EGR valve position and the exhaust back-pressure
which was controlled through an exhaust back-pressure
valve. The fuels used in this work are ultra-low-sulphur
diesel and anhydrous ethanol. The major fuel proper-
ties are listed in Table 2.
To implement the ethanol PFI, a stand-alone fuel
delivery system was developed. One gasoline-type PFI
Yu and Zheng 529

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the engine test set-up.

EGR: exhaust gas recirculation; Int. samp.: intake sample; Ext. samp.: exhaust sample; Smoke samp.: smoke sample; PFI: port fuel injection.

Table 2. Fuel properties.
Fuel property Value for the following
Diesel
Density (kg/m3) at 15 °C 846
Viscosity (cSt) at 40 °C 2.5
Cetane number 46.5
Octane number ’25
Lower heating value (MJ/kg) 43.5
Oxygen content (mass%) 0 34.8
Boiling temperature (°C) at 1 bar 246–388
injector was installed in each of the two intake runners.
The PFI injectors were driven by LM1949 injector driv-
ers. The DI diesel injectors were driven by four EFS
IPoD solenoid injector drivers. The injection pressure,
the timing and the durations of DI diesel and PFI etha-
nol were controlled via two independent real-time con-
trollers with embedded field-programmable gate
arrays. An optical encoder with 0.1° crank angle (CA)
resolution, mounted on one end of the engine crank-
shaft, functioned as an external timer for the control
systems, providing the ability to control the fuel injec-
tion timing with a resolution of 0.1° CA. The cylinder
pressure was measured via a piezoelectric transducer
and recorded by an data acquisition system with 0.1°
CA resolution developed in house. The IMEP, the
crank angle for 50% mass fraction burned (CA50) and
the heat release rate (HRR) were calculated in real time
and used to control the engine operation. The intake
and the exhaust of the engine were conditioned and
then measured by two racks of emission analysers from
California Analytical Instruments (exhaust carbon
Ethanol
dioxide (CO2), non-dispersive infrared sensor 200;
exhaust CO and O2, non-dispersive infrared sensor 300;
788 exhaust THC, heated flame ionization detector 300M;
1.5 exhaust NOx, heated chemiluminescence detector 600;
8–11 intake CO2 and O2, non-dispersive infrared sensor
’115
’27 602P). The sampled raw gases were passed through fil-
ters to remove the particulate matter. Then the water
78 content was condensed by a waterless chiller and
removed by the condensate separator before feeding
the gas sample into the emission analysers. No humid-
ity correction was made to the NOx emissions data;
thus, the results reported will be slightly higher than
the actual values. The smoke was sampled after the
exhaust surge tank and measured with an AVL 415S
smoke meter. For each test point, the indicated para-
meters were obtained from an average of 200 consecu-
tive cycles, while the operation stability was evaluated
from the variations in the 200 cycles.
During the tests, DI diesel was first applied to
achieve a low IMEP, and then PFI ethanol was pro-
gressively added to achieve the desired IMEP. In the
process, both premature autoignition and the THC
emissions were carefully monitored to ensure the test
safety. During the engine operation, the peak cylinder
pressure, the maximum pressure rise rate and the com-
bustion phasing were all monitored in real time.
Whenever there was a tendency to lose control or an
excessive high pressure rise rate, the fuel injection

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016

530
scheduling was changed to a safe operation range; thus,
the engine safety was assured. In addition, autoignition
was avoided during high-load operation, which is attri-
butable to the high octane number of ethanol and the
overall lean mixture. Since LTC normally features
simultaneous low NOx emissions and low soot emis-
sions, therefore, by monitoring the real-time emissions
during the tests, LTC was deemed to be realized when
both the NOx emissions and the soot emissions were
suppressed. The ethanol ratio is defined by
methanol LHVethanol
a=
methanol LHVethanol + mdiesel LHVdiesel
where a is the ethanol energy ratio, methanol is the etha-
nol fuelling rate (kg/cycle), mdiesel is the diesel fuelling
rate (kg/cycle), LHVethanol is the lower heating value (J/
kg) of ethanol and LHVdiesel is the lower heating value
(J/kg) of diesel.
Results and discussion
Effects of the ethanol ratio
A series of ethanol ratio sweep tests was performed to
understand the effect of the ethanol quantity on the
combustion and the emission characteristics of a diesel
engine. The engine was operated at an IMEP of 10 bar
at CA50, at around 368° CA. At each ethanol ratio,
the intake O2 concentration was adjusted from 18% to
12%, which represented an NOx suppression process.
The intake pressure Pint was boosted to 2 bar absolute,
and the DI diesel fuel injection pressure pinj was set at
1200 bar.
Figure 2 shows the effect of the ethanol ratio on the
cylinder pressure and the HRR profiles of dual-fuel
combustion at intake O2 concentrations of 18.2% and
13.3%. During the dual-fuel combustion process, the
burn rate of ethanol appeared slower than that of diesel
because of ethanol’s relatively lower reactivity.
However, the ignition process occurred concurrently in
both the diesel mixture and the ethanol mixture. The
premixed ethanol mixture provided a background for
diesel spray mixing and combustion. At a higher etha-
nol ratio, ignition of the diesel mixture occurred in a
higher-ethanol-concentration environment. The
increase in the ethanol concentration prolonged the ID,
which is shown by the retarded HRR curves in
Figure 2. With increasing ethanol ratio, a more homo-
geneous diesel mixture formed because of the pro-
longed ID, causing a rapid premixed combustion once
the ignition started. At a relatively high intake O2 con-
centration of 18.2%, the HRR curves exhibited double-
hump profiles. The first hump was mainly contributed
by the diesel ignition process. The timing of the first
heat release hump was retarded while the amplitude
increased together with an increase in the ethanol ratio,
indicating the improved diesel mixing and the conse-
quently more rapid combustion. Nevertheless, at a rela-
tively low intake O2 concentration of 13.3%, the HRR
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016
Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 230(4)
ð1Þ
Figure 2. Cylinder pressure and HRR curves at various
ethanol ratios a.
RPM: r/min; IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; CA50: crank angle
for 50% mass fraction burned; CA: crank angle; int. O2: intake oxygen;
HRR: heat release rate.
curves presented single-hump profiles. The increase in
the ethanol ratio retarded the start of heat release and
increased the heat release peak value except that at an
ethanol ratio of 0.8. A high pressure rise rate was asso-
ciated with the high peak value of heat release. The
maximum pressure rise rate occurred at the first peak
of the heat release rate, as shown in Figure 2. Figure
3(a) presents the effect of the ethanol ratio on the maxi-
mum pressure rise rate at various intake O2 concentra-
tions. The maximum pressure rise rate monotonically
increased with increasing ethanol ratio in O2-abundant
conditions. However, when the intake O2 concentration
was decreased to 13.3% to suppress NOx, the maxi-
mum pressure rise rate decreased at ethanol ratios
higher than 0.4.
Because of the relatively low reactivity of ethanol
and the overall lean mixture, the premixed ethanol mix-
ture needed the diesel fuel to initiate and stabilize the
combustion process. An increase in the ethanol ratio
can aggravate the combustion instability owing to the
reduction in the local richer diesel pockets. As shown
in Figure 3(b), the standard deviation of CA50 tended
to increase with increasing ethanol ratio. The decrease
in the intake O2 concentration caused this combustion
instability to worsen, especially at high ethanol ratios.
A small variation in the combustion phasing can cause
the engine performance to deteriorate. Under a stable
IMEP, the peak cylinder pressure pmax varies with the
combustion phasing.20 The unstable nature of combus-
tion at high ethanol ratios implies the necessity to apply
a closed-loop control strategy on CA50 for optimal
engine operations.
Yu and Zheng
Figure 3. Effect of the ethanol ratio on the combustion parameters.
max.: maximum; RPM: r/min; IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; CA50: crank angle for 50% mass fraction burned; CA: crank angle; O2: oxygen;
std.; standard deviation.
The ID (presented in Figure 3(c)) was expressed as
the difference between the CA at the diesel SOI and the
crank angle for 5% mass fraction burned (CA5), while
the combustion duration (CD) (presented in Figure
3(d)) was defined as the difference between the CA5
and the crank angle for 9% mass fraction burned
(CA95). For ethanol–diesel dual-fuel combustion, the
overall in-cylinder homogeneity was ensured by the
premixed ethanol; the ID mainly governed the local
diesel homogeneity. The increase in the ID associated
with the increase in the ethanol ratio can be explained
in the following manner. First, the reactivity of the in-
cylinder charge before the initiation of combustion
decreased owing to the reduction in the diesel quantity.
Second, the increased charge cooling effect led to a
lower compression temperature. Third, the diesel SOI
was advanced to maintain the CA50, thus further
prolonging the ignition owing to the lower pressure
and temperature at the early timings. The CD was
reduced at high ethanol ratios, which was reflected by
the rapid premixed combustion and possibly benefited
the thermal efficiency of dual-fuel combustion. The
reduction in the intake O2 concentration prolonged
both the ID and the CD, thereby contributing to the
decrease in the charge reactivity caused by EGR
dilution.
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016
531
At an IMEP of 10 bar, the premixed lean ethanol
mixture produced combustion with ultra-low NOx and
soot levels. The NOx emissions and the soot emissions
in the dual-fuel combustion process were mainly
formed from the heterogeneous diesel spray combus-
tion. When EGR was applied to dual-fuel combustion
with a low ethanol ratio, the classic NOx–soot trade-off
occurred; this can be seen from Figure 4(a) and (b).
However, by increasing the ethanol ratio, the soot level
was dramatically reduced even at a low intake O2 con-
centration. With a high ethanol ratio, because of both
the lowered diesel quantity and the prolonged ID, the
diesel fuel can be well mixed, resulting in reduction in
the soot emissions. In addition, with the increased fuel-
borne oxygen in ethanol, soot-free combustion was
achieved for dual-fuel combustion at a high ethanol
ratio. The lowered quantity of diesel fuel also led to a
reduction in the NOx emissions. With the combination
of EGR and ethanol usage, simultaneous low-NOx and
low-soot combustion (to meet the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) 2010 standard) was realized
at an IMEP of 10 bar with an ethanol ratio of 0.8 and
an intake O2 concentration of 12.3%. Under these test
conditions, the maximum pressure rise rate was lower
than that of the baseline diesel-only combustion. The
suppression of the maximum pressure rise rate with a
532 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 230(4)

Figure 4. Effect of the ethanol ratio on the engine-out emissions and the efficiency.
Ind.: indicated; RPM: r/min; IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; CA50: crank angle for 50% mass fraction burned; CA: crank angle; O2: oxygen;
NOx: nitrogen oxides; HC: hydrocarbon; CO: carbon monoxide; CO2: carbon dioxide. .

high ethanol ratio opened a pathway for achieving
high-load operation with simultaneous low NOx emis-
sions and low soot emissions. In contrast, single-fuel
diesel homogeneous charge compression ignition
(HCCI), with a homogeneous fuel–air mixture pro-
duced before ignition by multiple early injections, was
limited to a low to medium load owing to the exces-
sively high pressure rise rate.21
When the in-cylinder homogeneity was enhanced by
raising the ethanol ratio, the hydrocarbon emissions
spiked (as displayed in Figure 4(c)) because of the
increased contact of the fuel mixture with the cylinder
surface and crevices which quenched the flame. CO
was at the highest level at an ethanol ratio of around
0.5, and then it started to drop when the ethanol ratio
rose further. Generally, the reduction in the intake O2
concentration increased the incomplete combustion
products at various ethanol ratios. The fuel efficiency
of the engine showed a clear drop when the intake O2
concentration decreased, as shown in Figure 4(f). The
increase in the ethanol ratio had an insignificant effect
on the fuel efficiency except for the case with an intake
O2 concentration of 18.2%. The CO2 emissions will be
legislated for in a future standard. Figure 4(e) presented
the indicated CO2 emission data which were calculated
from the fuel efficiency, showing opposite trends.

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016

Yu and Zheng 533

Comparison with diesel LTC

An elevated level of EGR is the primary way to attain
LTC with simultaneous low NOx emissions and low
soot emissions in diesel engines.22 An EGR sweep test
was carried out to demonstrate the pathway for achiev-
ing diesel LTC, and a dual-fuel EGR sweep test was
performed under the same conditions to compare the
results. In order to assist the suppression of soot, the
injection pressure was set at 1500 bar. The ethanol ratio
was maintained at 0.63, and the CA50 was maintained
at around 369° CA. The EGR ratio was progressively
increased until the NOx emissions and the soot emis-
sions were simultaneously confined within the require-
ments of the EPA 2010 standard.
For both diesel-only and dual-fuel combustion, the Figure 5. Indicated NOx emissions and soot emissions versus
NOx emissions were all suppressed by the reduction in intake O2 concentration.
the intake O2 concentration. The trends of the soot NOx: nitrogen oxides; exh. O2: exhaust oxygen; IMEP: indicated mean
emissions with respect to the intake O2 concentration effective pressure; CA50: crank angle for 50% mass fraction burned; CA:
crank angle; Int. O2: intake oxygen.
in the diesel-only tests and the dual-fuel tests exhibited
a significant difference. As seen from Figure 5, the
diesel-only EGR sweep tests had excessive soot emis-
sions during the transition to the zone with simulta-
neous low NOx emissions and low soot emissions,
which is normally perceived as diesel LTC. The initial
rise in the soot emissions, corresponding to the reduc-
tion in the intake O2 concentration, exemplifies the tra-
ditional NOx–soot trade-off in diesel engines.23 With a
further reduction in the intake O2 concentration to
8.5% (corresponding to an EGR level of 70%), LTC
was attained, which is indicated by a significant drop in
the soot emissions while the NOx emissions were
already ultra-low. In dual-fuel tests, the soot emissions
showed only a slight increase before leading to the zone
with simultaneous low NOx emissions and low soot
emissions.
The trends in the NOx emissions and the soot emis-
sions can be explained, together with the trends of the Figure 6. ID and CD versus intake oxygen concentration.
combustion characteristics shown in Figure 6. With the IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure.; CA50: crank angle for 50%
reduction in the intake O2 concentration, the ID was mass fraction burned; CA: crank angle; ID: ignition delay; CD:
combusion duration; Int. O2: intake oxygen.
monotonically prolonged for both diesel-only combus-
tion and dual-fuel combustion. A longer ID offers a
longer mixing time for DI diesel fuel. However, for the
diesel-only test at a moderate EGR level, the ID was of 14%. Figure 7 shows comparisons of the cylinder
not sufficiently long for good mixing of the relatively pressure and HRR curves for dual-fuel and diesel-only
large quantity of diesel fuel before ignition, leading to LTC. The diesel LTC showed a substantial pressure
high soot emissions. This mechanism explains the rise drop and trailing HRR shape, which indicated an inef-
in the soot emissions during the transition of the intake ficient combustion process.
O2 concentration to about 11%, labelled as slope 1 in Incomplete combustion products such as THC and
Figure 5. With a further increase in the ID, the diesel CO are typically low for conventional high-temperature
fuel gradually formed a well-mixed mixture before the diesel combustion; this is attributed to the high com-
initiation of combustion, resulting in the reduction in bustion temperature and the O2 abundance. When the
the soot emissions which is shown as slope 2 in Figure combustion was in the LTC regime, incomplete com-
5. For dual-fuel combustion, the ID was consistently bustion was the result of the reduced combustion tem-
longer than that for diesel at the same intake O2 level, perature and the highly dilute cylinder charge.
offering sufficient mixing time for the lowered quantity Notwithstanding the simultaneously suppressed NOx
of diesel fuel. As a result, dual-fuel combustion and soot, the THC emissions and the CO emissions
achieved simultaneous ultra-low NOx emissions and increased when diesel LTC was achieved, as shown in
ultra-low soot emissions at an intake O2 concentration Figure 8. For dual-fuel combustion, the premixed

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016

534
Figure 7. Comparisons of the cylinder pressure and the HRR
curves under ultra-low NOx and ultra-low soot conditions.
IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; int. O2: intake oxygen; NOx:
nitrogen oxides; HRR: heat release rate; CA: crank angle.
mixture inherently caused high THC emissions owing
to incomplete burning in the boundary layer and cre-
vices. Furthermore, the relatively low reactivity of the
high-octane ethanol aggravated incomplete combus-
tion, thereby resulting in high CO emissions. As shown
in Figure 8, with the decrease in the intake O2 concen-
tration to 13%, the THC emissions and the CO emis-
sions of dual-fuel combustion were markedly higher
than those of diesel-only combustion. Nonetheless,
when compared with the diesel LTC at the high EGR
level, the incomplete combustion products from dual-
fuel combustion were at similar levels. The CO emis-
sions were expected to be higher when the diesel-only
combustion reached simultaneous low NOx emissions
and low soot emissions, and yet the CO measurement
level exceeded the analyser limit. During the transition
to LTC for diesel-only combustion, deterioration in the
fuel efficiency, coupled with a notable IMEP drop, was
repeatedly observed in the present author’s labora-
tory.24 As seen from Figure 8, the IMEP decreased
from 10 bar to 8 bar for slope 2 while it was well main-
tained at 10 bar for slope 1. For dual-fuel combustion,
in spite of the high THC and CO levels, the fuel effi-
ciency was maintained at a similar level to that in the
diesel-only combustion within the same intake O2 con-
centration range, which possibly can be attributed to
the reduced CD.
Controllability of combustion phasing
Combustion phasing control is critical for maintaining
LTC as it relates to the engine roughness, the stability
and the efficiency. In particular, combustion phasing
control is one of the major issues that impedes LTC in
high-load conditions with ultra-low NOx emissions and
ultra-low soot emissions. For the dual-fuel combustion
investigated in this paper, the combustion of a premixed
ethanol mixture was prevented until after the pilot
injection of a small quantity of diesel. The overall
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016
Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 230(4)
Figure 8. Effect of the intake oxygen concentration on the
THC emissions, the CO emissions and the thermal efficiency.
RPM: r/min; IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; CA50: crank angle
for 50% mass fraction burned; CA: crank angle; THC: total hydrocarbon;
CO: carbon monoxide; Int. O2: intake oxygen.
combustion process was triggered by the diesel injec-
tion. In order to evaluate the combustion phasing con-
trollability of dual-fuel combustion, a set of diesel SOI
sweep tests was performed. The diesel SOI was gradu-
ally advanced from 358° CA to 329° CA, at a fixed
ethanol ratio of 0.63 and an EGR level of 30%. The
IMEP was initially maintained at 10 bar when the diesel
SOI was later than 353° CA. Thereafter, in order to
ensure the safety of the test engine, the IMEP was
decreased to 8 bar with the diesel SOI further advanced
from 350° CA to 329° CA.
From Figure 9, with a diesel SOI timing closer to
the top dead centre (TDC), the HRR exhibited a clear
double-hump pattern because of the different burn
rates of the two fuels. The advance of the diesel SOI
timing led to a steady increase in the ID, highlighted in
Figure 10, allowing a gradual and sufficient mixing of
the diesel fuel before ignition. Hence, the diesel fuel
mixed more extensively into the premixed ethanol mix-
ture background and formed an overall leaner diesel
mixture, thereby lowering the maximum cylinder pres-
sure rise of the HRR. It should be noted that an inver-
sion point existed around a diesel SOI timing of 334°
CA, which is highlighted in Figure 10 with the CA50,
ID and CD curves. The cylinder pressure and the HRR
curves showed a clear contrast corresponding to the
CA50. During the advance of the diesel SOI to 334°
CA, the CA50 gradually shifted in unison with the
SOI. In contrast, with a further advance of the SOI
Yu and Zheng
Figure 9. Cylinder pressure and HRR curves with various
diesel SOI timings.
RPM: r/min; IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; EGR: exhaust gas
recirculation; Int. O2: intake oxygen; CA: crank angle; HRR: heat release
rate.
Figure 10. Effect of the diesel SOI on the combustion phasing
parameters.
IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; EGR: exhaust gas recirculation;
Int. O2: intake oxygen; CA50: crank angle for 50% mass fraction burned;
ID: ignition delay; CD: combustion duration; CA: crank angle; SOI: start
of ignition.
from 334° CA, the CA50 was retarded, indicating a loss
of direct combustion phasing control by the diesel SOI
timings. With a diesel SOI timing earlier than 334° CA,
the excessive ID enhanced the mixing of diesel signifi-
cantly and thereby formed a more homogeneous but
leaner diesel mixture. The leaner and less reactive mix-
ture suppressed the ignition tendency and the burn rate
at the early stage of dual-fuel combustion with a
retarded CA50. This suggested that the mixing between
the diesel and the premixed ethanol was still not
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016
535
Figure 11. Control sensitivity of the combustion phasing
versus diesel SOI.
IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; EGR: exhaust gas recirculation;
Int. O2: intake oxygen; CA50: crank angle for 50% mass fraction burned;
CA: crank angle; ID: ignition delay; SOI: start of ignition.
complete; otherwise the combustion phasing should be
insignificantly affected by the diesel SOI timing if
HCCI combustion had been realized at the time.25
With excessively advanced diesel SOI timing, and
enhanced mixing, dual-fuel combustion changed to
quasi-HCCI combustion, as is therefore indicated by
the shortened CD.
To understand further the effect of the diesel SOI on
the combustion controllability, the coefficients are
defined as
DID
kID = ð2Þ
DSOI
and
DCA50
kCA50 = ð3Þ
DSOI
where kID is the change rate in the ID versus the diesel
SOI timings, kCA50 is the change rate in the CA50 ver-
sus the diesel SOI timings, DID is the change (deg CA)
in the ID at each diesel SOI advance, DCA50 is the
change (deg CA) in the CA50 at each diesel SOI
advance and DSOI is the diesel SOI advance (deg CA).
kID represents the extension of the ID, which is
affected by advancing the diesel SOI. Therefore, a posi-
tive value of kID signified an increased ID with advance
of the diesel SOI, while a negative value of kID indi-
cated a reduced ID corresponding to an advance in the
SOI timing. Analogous to the definition of kID, kCA50
represents the advance in the CA50 caused by a unit
advance in the diesel SOI. Consequently, a positive
kCA50 represents an advance in the CA50 corresponding
to an advance in the SOI. The analysis applied to the
diesel SOI sweep test is presented in Figure 11. A shar-
per increase in kID was observed with the diesel SOI
earlier than 334° CA, which is expressed as the trend
inversion point, in the subsequent discussion. It may be
536
inferred from the slope of kID that the sensitivity of the
ID to the SOI increased significantly with the SOI ear-
lier than the trend inversion point. kCA50 is also plotted
in Figure 11. The retarded CA50 with advance in the
SOI beyond the trend inversion point may be inter-
preted from the negative values of kCA50. Furthermore,
the noticeable increase in the slope of kCA50 (concurrent
with that of kID) suggested a higher sensitivity of com-
bustion to the change in the diesel SOI and a require-
ment for tighter injection control.
The possible change in the combustion mode around
the trend inversion point may be caused by interaction
of the diesel spray with the combustion chamber geo-
metry. The conventional bowl design was optimized for
injection close to the TDC with spray penetration into
the bowl. Hence, the injection close to the TDC spa-
tially constrained the diesel mixture formation into the
bowl, resulting in a relatively less lean diesel mixture.
However, as the SOI was advanced, the spray target
was offset from the optimal location inside the combus-
tion bowl. At certain injection timings before the TDC,
the diesel spray oriented to the edge of the bowl or even
outside the bowl while the piston was still moving
towards the TDC.26 Consequently, the diesel fuel
mixed more extensively throughout the cylinder, which
resulted in a leaner mixture complemented by a lower
in-cylinder gas temperature at an earlier SOI timing,
leading to a further ID. For most of the test points in
this paper, the CA50 values were constrained within
the range from 365° CA to 375° CA for optimal fuel
efficiency and to lower peak cylinder pressures for
expansion to high-load ranges. As shown in Figure 11,
the combustion controllability with CA50 in this range
was fairly responsive.
NOx and soot suppression under high loads
To suppress simultaneously the NOx emissions and the
soot emissions at a high engine load is one of the major
objectives of this work. The limits that confine the engi-
neò¥s operation load include the maximum cylinder
pressure, the maximum pressure rise rate and the varia-
tions in the combustion processes. The tested engine
was designed to a maximum cylinder pressure of 180
bar. Thus, during the experiments in this paper, the
maximum cylinder pressure was monitored so that it
did not exceed 180 bar. The maximum pressure rise rate
threshold was set at 20 bar/deg CA. The variations in
the IMEP and the deviation parameters of the combus-
tion phasing were calculated in real time while the
engine was running and were carefully watched to avoid
severe engine instability. The extension to a high load
was achieved by increasing the ethanol ratio as well as
the quantity and by boosting the intake pressure. The
engine performance data at medium loads (IMEPs of
10 bar and 12 bar) and high loads (IMEPs of 16–18
bar) in Figure 12 during the process of suppressing
NOx by decreasing the intake O2 concentration were
compared. To illustrate better the load extension
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016
Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 230(4)
process, the data are plotted against the exhaust O2
concentration which corresponded to both the load
level and the intake O2 concentration. Data for an
IMEP of 10 bar were extracted from the previous EGR
sweep experiments. Tests at an IMEP of 12 bar were
carried out with the same settings as the tests at an
IMEP of 10 bar except that the ethanol ratio was ele-
vated to 0.7. The dual-fuel test load was enhanced to an
IMEP of 18 bar with the intake pressure boosted to 2.5
bar and the ethanol ratio increased to 0.9. The injection
pressure was decreased to 900 bar and the CA50 was
retarded and fixed at 373° CA to assure the engine
safety for a range of test points.
As seen from Figure 12, the maximum cylinder pres-
sure reached the limit of 180 bar for the high-load tests;
nonetheless the pressure rise rate was constrained even
lower than that at medium loads, possibly owing to the
increased ethanol ratio and the retarded CA50. For all
the load levels, the intake O2 concentration was gradu-
ally reduced (coupled with a decreased exhaust O2 con-
centration) to suppress the NOx emissions. The NOx
emissions reached acceptably low levels for all the loads
when the intake O2 concentration was lowered to about
14%. For the same intake O2 concentration, a higher
load resulted in a lower exhaust O2 concentration. As
shown in Figure 12, with an intake O2 concentration of
about 14%, there was still about 8% O2 available in
the exhaust at an IMEP of 10 bar, while there was only
less than 4% O2 left at an IMEP of 17 bar, even with a
higher intake boost pressure. The enrichment of the in-
cylinder mixture, indicated by the lowered exhaust O2
concentration, significantly affected the soot formation.
Notwithstanding the overall lean in-cylinder mixture,
which is evidenced by the O2 remaining in exhaust, the
spatially inhomogeneous region due to the diesel injec-
tion contained rich mixture pockets. Since the prevail-
ing ethanol mixture can reach soot-free combustion
owing to the lean burn, the soot emissions were only
produced in the rich pockets where both diesel and
ethanol burned concurrently. When the intake O2 con-
centration was below 14%, the soot emissions exhibited
only a slight increase at an IMEP of 10 bar; this is
attributed to the abundant O2 available for the small
diesel injection quantity. In contrast, a sharp increase
in the soot emissions was observed at an IMEP of 17–
18 bar with a decrease in the exhaust O2 concentration
from 4% to 2%. Because of the higher ethanol ratio
and the lower injection pressure, the IDs at high loads
were longer than those at medium loads. Nonetheless,
the longer IDs at high loads did not lead to a lower
soot level owing to the poor spray quality and insuffi-
cient O2 concentration.
The combustion of the small quantity of DI diesel
fuel exhibited the classical NOx–soot trade-off.
Figure 13 compares the combustion processes of two
selected cases with the NOx–soot trade-off conditions.
Case 1, with an intake O2 concentration of 17.2%,
yielded a high NOx level and a low soot level while,
conversely, case 2, with an intake O2 concentration of
Yu and Zheng
Figure 12. Comparisons of the engine performances at medium loads and high loads.
IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; CA50: crank angle for 50% mass fraction burned; CA: crank angle; Int. O2: intake oxygen; NOx: nitrogen
oxides; Exh. O2: exhaust oxygen.
12.4%, produced a low NOx level and a high soot level.
The peaks of the two heat release humps in case 1 were
apparently higher than those in case 2, indicating a
higher combustion temperature. In particular, as previ-
ously discussed, NOx was most probably formed from
the local high-temperature diesel burning which corre-
sponded to the first heat release hump. Thus, a sharp
increase in the first heat release hump in case 1 corre-
sponds to high NOx production. When the intake O2
concentration was reduced to a lower level as in case 2,
the first heat release hump was flattened and the overall
heat release profile was stretched. The slow early-stage
combustion indicated incomplete burning of the locally
rich diesel–ethanol mixture.
To suppress simultaneously the NOx emissions and
the soot emissions at high loads, the injection pressure,
the intake boost pressure, the intake O2 concentration
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016
537
(EGR) and the ethanol ratio were coordinated through
sophisticated control strategies. Figure 14 shows the
cylinder pressure and the HRR curves at an IMEP of
16 bar during a process to suppress simultaneously the
NOx emissions and the soot emissions. The diesel injec-
tion pressure was increased to 1200 bar to reduce the
soot level at low intake O2 concentrations. This might
concurrently increase the NOx level and the pressure
rise rate. Hence, the intake pressure was boosted with
the reduction in the intake O2 concentration to suppress
the NOx emissions. In order to confine the pressure rise
rate under relatively high intake O2 concentrations, the
CA50 was retarded to 375° CA. With the reduction in
the intake O2 concentration and the increase in the
intake boost pressure, the CA50 was gradually
advanced to 371° CA to maintain the IMEP and the
thermal efficiency. Table 3 summarizes the combustion
538 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 230(4)

Figure 13. Cylinder pressures and HRRs at high loads with NOx–soot trade-off conditions.
IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; int. O2: intake oxygen; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CA50: crank angle for 50% mass fraction burned; CA: crank
angle; HRR: heat release rate.

Table 3. Engine performances at high loads with simultaneously suppressed NOx emissions and soot emissions.

Test IMEP a pmax dp/dumax IMEPCOV pint [O2]int CA50 Efficiency NOx Soot THC CO
(bar) (bar) (bar/deg CA) (%) (bar) (%) (deg CA) (g/kW h) (g/kW h) (g/kW h) (g/kW h) (g/kW h)

1 9.9 0.63 144 14.7 1.3 2.0 15.2 370 43.9 0.17 0.009 3.09 10.14
2 16.8 0.72 137 16.4 1.1 2.0 14.6 375 39.1 0.58 0.012 2.74 16.9
3 16.2 0.72 154 9.6 1.0 2.25 14.0 372 39.5 0.22 0.011 3.67 18.16
4 16.2 0.85 175 6.0 1.3 2.5 13.0 371 40.2 0.15 0.008 3.17 16.89

IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; CA: crank angle; IMEPCOV: coefficient of variance of the indicated mean effective pressure; O2: oxygen;
CA50: crank angle for 50% mass fraction burned; NOx: nitrogen oxides; THC: total hydrocarbon; CO: carbon monoxide.

and emission results for the high-load tests with simul-
taneous low NOx emisions and low soot emissions, with
a case at an IMEP of 10 bar for comparison. Ultra-low
NOx emissions and ultra-low soot emissions were
achieved at an IMEP of 16 bar with a fairly low pres-
sure rise rate and a fairly low coefficient of variance
(COV) of the IMEP. The lowest NOx and soot levels
were produced with an intake boost pressure of 2.5 bar,
resulting in a peak cylinder pressure of 175 bar. The
limit of the cylinder pressure of the test engine impeded
further extension of the operation load for simulta-
neous low NOx levels and low soot levels to a higher
IMEP. In comparison with the test at an IMEP of 10
bar, the achievement of simultaneous ultra-low NOx
levels and ultra-low soot levels at an IMEP of 16 bar
required a higher intake boost pressure and higher
EGR (lower intake O2 concentration) and yielded a
higher cylinder pressure, a slightly lower fuel efficiency
and increased incomplete burned products.
As indicated by the increase in the incomplete com-
bustion products, high-load LTC was pushed to the
boundary of stable combustion where a slight change in
the engine operation parameters (especially EGR) leads
to uncontrolled combustion. Figure 15 demonstrates a
transition from stable combustion to instable combus-
tion at a change in the EGR of only 1% for a target
load (IMEP) of 16 bar. For both cases, the NOx emis-
sions and the soot emissions were simultaneously low.

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016

Yu and Zheng 539

With the same fuelling quantity and injection schedules, Conclusions

a slight variation in the intake O2 concentration may
Extensive engine tests were carried out to investigate
precede unmanageable combustion phasing. The aver-
ethanol–diesel dual-fuel combustion. Combustion and
age CA50 for the consecutive 200 cycles were retarded
the emissions were characterized with regard to the
by 4° CA with a significantly increased variance. The
effects of the ethanol ratio, the EGR and the diesel
average IMEP decreased by 2 bar and the cyclic varia-
injection timing. On the basis of the empirical analysis,
tions in pmax and IMEP were unacceptably high.
conclusions can be drawn as follows.

1. LTC, with an NOx level below 0.2 g/kW h and a

soot level below 0.01 g/kW h, was successfully
achieved via implementation of an ethanol–diesel
dual-fuel strategy in the test engine with a stable
operation load extended to an IMEP of 16.2 bar.
2. The simultaneous suppression of NOx and soot at
high loads relied on coordination of the intake
boost pressure, the EGR, the increase in the etha-
nol ratio and adequate combustion phasing con-
trol. The essence was to lower the combustion
temperature and to improve the homogeneity of
the localized uneven diesel–ethanol clouds intro-
duced by diesel injection.
3. The use of premixed ethanol showed significant
advantages for achieving soot-free combustion.
The increase in the ethanol ratio prolonged the ID
and suppressed the pressure rise rate, presenting an
Figure 14. Cylinder pressures and HRRs at a high load with
simultaneously suppressed NOx emissions and soot emissions. overall mild combustion process. EGR and the
IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; HRR: heat release rate; CA: intake boost pressure were necessary for reducing
crank angle. the NOx emissions of dual-fuel combustion

Figure 15. Transition of stable combustion to instable combustion corresponding to a small change in EGR.
IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; Int. O2: intake oxygen; EGR: exhaust gas recirculation; NOx: nitrogen oxides; THC: total hydrocarbon; CO:
carbon monoxide; CA50: crank angle for 50% mass fraction burned; CA: crank angle; SOI: start of ignition; HRR: heat release rate; COV: coefficient
of variance.

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016

540
especially at high loads. In comparison with the
diesel-only LTC, dual-fuel combustion demanded
much less aggressive EGR to achieve simultaneous
ultra-low NOx emissions and ultra-low soot
emissions.
4. Dual-fuel combustion offered improved combus-
tion phasing controllability. Under the test condi-
tions in this paper, the combustion phasing was
responsive to in-cylinder diesel injection over a
wide range of timings.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following finan-
cial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: This work was supported by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (CRD421789-11 and APCPJ453063), AUTO21
(D504-DBA), BiofuelNet (Project 20), the Canada
Foundation for Innovation (CFI 20414), Ontario
Research Funds (ORF-RE02-019), the University of
Windsor and Ford Motor Company.
References
1. Imtenan S, Varman M, Masjuki HH et al. Impact of low
temperature combustion attaining strategies on diesel
engine emissions for diesel and biodiesels: a review.
Energy Conversion Managmt 2014; 80: 329–356.
2. Alriksson M, Rente T and Denbratt I. Low soot, low
NOx in a heavy duty diesel using high levels of EGR.
SAE paper 2005-01-3836, 2005.
3. Asad U and Zheng M. Efficacy of EGR and boost in
single-injection enabled low temperature combustion.
SAE paper 2009-01-1126, 2009.
4. Pickett LM and Siebers DL. Non-sooting, low flame
temperature mixing-controlled DI diesel combustion.
SAE paper 2004-01-1399, 2004.
5. Zheng M, Reader GT and Hawley JG. Diesel engine
exhaust gas recirculation: a review on advanced and
novel concepts. Energy Conversion Managmt 2004; 45:
883–900.
6. Asad U and Zheng M. Tightened intake oxygen control
for improving diesel low-temperature combustion. Proc
IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 2011; 225(4):
513–530.
7. Flowers DL, Aceves SM, Martinez-Frias J and Dibble
RW. Prediction of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon
emissions in iso-octane HCCI engine combustion using
multi-zone simulations. Proc Combust Inst 2002; 29(1):
687–694.
8. Kook S, Bae C, Miles PC et al. The influence of charge
dilution and injection timing on low-temperature diesel
combustion and emissions. SAE paper 2005-01-3837, 2005.
9. Asad U and Zheng M. Evaluation of diesel low tempera-
ture combustion fuel-injection strategies at different
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016
Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 230(4)
engine loads. In: ASME 2010 fall internal combustion
engine division technical conference, San Antonio, Texas,
USA, 12–15 September 2010, paper ICEF 2010-35172,
pp. 479–489. New York: ASME.
10. Inagaki K, Fuyuto T, Nishikawa K et al. Dual-fuel PCI
combustion controlled by in-cylinder stratification of
ignitability. SAE paper 2006-01-0028, 2006.
11. Ma S, Yao M, Tong L and Zheng Z. An experimental
study on combustion and emissions of gasoline/diesel
dual fuel HPCC. Trans CSICE 2012; 30: 1–8.
12. Abu-Qudais M, Haddad O and Qudaisat M. The effect
of alcohol fumigation on diesel engine performance and
emissions. Energy Conversion Managmt 2000; 4: 389–399.
13. Hepp C, Krenn M, Wasserbauer J and Eichlseder H.
Dual fuel compression ignition combustion concept for
gasoline and diesel. SAE paper 2014-01-1319, 2014.
14. Ma S, Zheng Z, Liu H et al. Experimental investigation
of the effects of diesel injection strategy on gasoline/
diesel dual-fuel combustion. Appl Energy 2013; 109:
202–212.
15. Korres DM, Painesaki A, Karonis D and Lois E. Use of
ethanol along with biodiesel in diesel and jet fuels on a
stationary diesel engine. SAE paper 2005-01-3676, 2005.
16. Sathyanarayanan G, Thomson S and Mahalakshmi NV.
Effect of premixed charge of ethanol and exhaust gas recir-
culation on the performance and emission characteristics in
an ethanol–diesel fueled HCDC engine – an experimental
investigation. SAE paper 2008-01-2609, 2008.
17. Ishida M, Yamamoto S, Ueki H and Sakaguchi D.
Remarkable improvement of NOx–PM trade-off in a die-
sel engine by means of bioethanol and EGR. Energy
2010; 35: 4572–4581.
18. Padala S, Woo C, Kook S and Hawkes ER. Ethanol uti-
lization in a diesel engine using dual-fuelling technology.
Fuel 2013; 109: 597–607.
19. Manente V, Tunestal P, Johansson B and Cannella W.
Effects of ethanol and different type of gasoline fuels on
partially premixed combustion from low to high load.
SAE paper 2010-01-0871, 2010.
20. Saxena S and Bedoya ID. Fundamental phenomena
affecting low temperature combustion and HCCI engines,
high load limits and strategies for extending these limits.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 2013; 39: 457–488.
21. Zheng M, Tan Y, Mulenga MC and Wang M. Thermal
efficiency analyses of diesel low temperature combustion
cycles. SAE paper 2007-01-4019, 2007.
22. Alriksson M and Denbratt I. Low temperature combus-
tion in a heavy duty diesel engine using high levels of
EGR. SAE paper 2006-01-0075, 2006.
23. Akihama K, Takatori Y, Inagaki K et al. Mechanism of
the smokeless rich diesel combustion by reducing tem-
perature. SAE paper 2001-01-0655, 2001.
24. Asad U, Han X and Zheng M. An empirical study to
extend engine load in diesel low temperature combustion.
SAE paper 2011-01-1814, 2011.
25. Zheng M, Tan Y, Reader GT and Wang M. Adaptive
combustion control to improve diesel HCCI cycle fuel
efficiency. In: ASME 2007 Internal Combustion Engine
Division fall technical conference, Charleston, South Car-
olina, USA, 14–17 October 2007, paper ICEF2007-1630,
pp. 61–70. New York: ASME.
26. Liu H, Ma S, Zhang Z et al. Study of the control strate-
gies on soot reduction under early injection conditions on
a diesel engine. Fuel 2015; 139: 472–481.
Yu and Zheng 541

Appendix 1 Abbreviations
Notation CA crank angle
CA5 crank angle for 5% mass fraction burned
dp/ maximum cylinder pressure rise rate (bar)
(deg)
dumax
CA50 crank angle for 50% mass fraction burned
[O2]int intake oxygen concentration (%)
(deg)
kCA50 change rate in the crank angle of 5% mass
CA95 crank angle for 95% mass fraction burned
fraction burned versus direct-injection
(deg)
start-of-injection timings (deg/deg crank
CD combustion duration
angle)
CO carbon monoxide
kID change rate in the ignition delay versus
CO2 carbon dioxide
direct-injection start-of-injection timings
COV coefficient of variance
(–)
DI direct injection
mdiesel diesel fuelling rate (kg/cycle)
EGR exhaust gas recirculation
methanol ethanol fuelling rate (kg/cycle)
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
pinj pressure of injection (bar)
HCCI homogeneous charge compression
pint pressure of intake (bar)
ignition
pmax cylinder peak pressure (bar)
HRR heat release rate
a ethanol ratio (–)
ID ignition delay
DID change in the ignition delay at each direct-
IMEP indicated mean effective pressure
injection start-of-injection advance (deg
LHV lower heating value
crank angle)
LTC low-temperature combustion
DCA50 change in the crank angle of 5% mass
NOx nitrogen oxides
fraction burned at each direct-injection
PCCI premixed charge compression ignition
start-of-injection advance (deg)
PFI port fuel injection
DSOI direct-injection start-of-injection advance
SOI start of injection
(deg crank angle)
THC total hydrocarbon

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Monash University on March 1, 2016