Experimental Investigation of Novel Methanol Fumigation On Single Cylinder Constant Speed Diesel Engine
Experimental Investigation of Novel Methanol Fumigation On Single Cylinder Constant Speed Diesel Engine
Experimental Investigation of Novel Methanol Fumigation On Single Cylinder Constant Speed Diesel Engine
com
oxygen, which contributes to the combustion. The loads is compared (Cheng et al. 2008). Blended mode
alcohols are named accordingly to the basic molecules has lower CO, HC and NO2 and particulate emissions
of hydrocarbon which derives from them: Methanol and however, the fumigation mode gives higher brake
(CH3OH); Ethanol (C2H5OH); Propanol (C3H7OH); thermal efficiency at medium and high engine loads.
Butanol (C4H9OH). Theoretically, any of the organic The experiment clearly shows two different conditions
molecules of the alcohol family can be used as a fuel. with their effects over exhaust gas and engine
Two of the alcohols which are having simplest performance.
molecular structure are technically and economically The fumigation of methanol is tested in 4-
suitable as fuels for internal combustion engines and cylinder direct injection diesel engine which
they are methanol and ethanol. Methanol is produced influences engine combustion and particulate
by a variety of processes, i.e., distillation of wood; emissions (Zhang et al. 2013). It reduces diesel fuel
distillation of coal; natural gas and petroleum gas. consumed and increases the heat release rate in
Ethanol is produced mainly from biomass premixed mode. With the application of fumigation
transformation, or bioconversion. It can also be methanol, the minimum in-cylinder pressure decreases
produced by synthesis from petroleum or mineral coal. from low to medium engine load, but increases at high
The advantages of methanol include they can be made engine load. It also increases the ignition delay, but
out of organic material such as biomass and municipal has no significant influence on the combustion
waste; methanol combustion produces higher duration. It effectively reduces particulate mass and
combustion pressures inside the combustion chamber number of concentrations and increases the fraction of
of the IC engines; methanols have better combustion nucleation mode particles, and thus decreases the
characteristics and performance due to the increased Geometric Mean Diameter (GMD) from medium-to-
volumetric efficiency of methanol fuel; better safety for high engine loads.
fire, leakage and spillages; methanols have a lower The inferences obtained from the above
evaporative emission; carbon content in methanol is discussions are as follows:
very small, and methanols do not require special
Methanol is used as fumigation fuels.
transportation.
Fumigation is applied for common rail diesel
The methods of using methanol in diesel
engine are methanol fumigation, methanol-diesel blend, engine, turbo charged engine, indirect injection
methanol-diesel emulsification and dual injection. engines and multi cylinder engines.
II. LITERATURE SURVEY Biodiesel is combined with methanol fumigations.
Emulsifier method is comparable with fumigation
The literatures in the areas of fumigations are method and fumigation gives better results.
collected and are reviewed here. Fumigation improves performance, combustion
In alcohol fumigation, the alcohol fuel is and emission characteristics of diesel engines.
introduced into the intake air up stream of the manifold The objective of this paper is to investigate a
by spraying or carbureting (Abu-Qudais et al ., 2000; constant speed single cylinder diesel engine using
methanol fumigation for performance and emission.
Bhupendra Singh Chauhan et al., 2011). In ethanol–diesel
Methanol is used as a fumigation fuel with three
blend, ethanol and diesel fuels are premixed uniformly
different fumigation ratios of 10%, 20% and 30% on
and then injected into cylinder directly through the fuel
energy basis. Performance and emission
injector (Bilgin et al., 2002; Chaplin and Janius 1987). In characteristics are compared for methanol fumigation
methanol–diesel emulsification, an emulsifier is used to with diesel fuel.
mix the fuels to prevent separation (Cheng et al.,, 2008).
In dual injection, separate injection systems are used for III. MATERIALS AND METHODS
fuels injection (Goldsworthy 2013).
The direct-injection diesel engine operation in a The engine selected for this experimental
duel fuel mode using pongamia methyl ester injection work is a single cylinder, constant speed diesel engine.
The specification of the engine and testing equipments
and methanol carburetion on performance and emission
characteristics is experimentally investigated (Haribabu are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Specification of engine
et al. 2010). It is noted that exhaust gas temperatures are
moderate and there is a better reduction of NOx, HC, CO Parameter Details
and CO2 at a methanol mass flow rate of 16.2 mg/s. Make Kirloskar AV1
Smoke level is observed to be low and comparable. Number of cylinders, Single cylinder, four stroke
strokes
Improved thermal efficiency of the engine is also
Bore and Stroke 80mm and 110mm
observed.
The effect of applying biodiesel with either 10% Power 3.75kW @ 1500rpm
blended methanol or 10% fumigation methanol in 4- Compression ratio 18:01
cylinder diesel engine at 1800rev/min with 5 different Type of cooling Water cooling
0.8 M10% was used to measure the emission values. Range and
M20% accuracy of different instruments used was shown in
0.6
M30% Table 3. Burettes were used to measure the volumetric
0.4 fuel consumption rates of diesel and methanols. The
exhaust gas temperature and cooling water outlet
0.2
temperature were measured online by a K-type iron
0 constant thermocouple.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Different Loads in %
light obscuration method in which the intensity of the power. The variation of BTE with loads of diesel and
light beam is reduced by smoke, which is a measure of fumigation fuels was shown in Figure 10. The result
smoke intensity. The carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons showed that methanol fumigation decreases the BTE
(UBHC) emissions were measured by Non-Dispersive at low load and increases the BTE at medium and
Infra Red (NDIR) analyzer. The exhaust gases are higher engine loads. The decrease in efficiency is up
allowed to pass through a water trap immersed in an ice to about 11% for 30% methanol fumigation at 20%
bath to separate the condensed water so that only dry load condition. The results indicate that the
exhaust gas is allowed into the exhaust analyzer. The combustion efficiency decreases at low loads, but
AVL five gas analyzer and smoke meter were used for could be improved at high loads, with an increase in
the measurement of exhaust gas emissions and smoke. the level of fumigation methanols. At low loads, the
The readings are taken for diesel and methanol with three fumigation methanol and the intake air to form a
fumigation rates. mixture which might be too lean to support
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION combustion, resulting in deterioration in the
In this experiment, performance and emission combustion efficiency. At medium to high loads, the
mixture might be rich enough to support combustion,
were evaluated using diesel and diesel with methanol
resulting in better combustion. The enhanced rate of
fumigation. Three fumigation ratios are used and they are
heat release due to the combustion of the
10%, 20% and 30%. These ratios are obtained by using
homogeneous air/methanol mixture should help to
fuel map and electronic injection. The results on engine
performance and emission are discussed here. improve the brake thermal efficiency.
Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) is calculated 35
D
0.8 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75
Brake Power in kW
0.7 D90M10
in kg/kw-hr
D
0.2 250 D90M10
0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75 D80M20
Brake Power in kW 200
D70M30
Fig 9. SFC Vs BP 150
The results showed that SFC was higher than 100
that of diesel fuel for any percentage of fumigated fuel 50
and increased with the level of fumigation. It showed
0
0.662 kg/kW-hr, 0.727 kg/kW-hr and 0.799 kg/kW-hr
0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75
SFC at 20% load for methanol fumigation, which is Brake Power in kW
12.9%, 24.1% and 36.3% higher than operating on diesel
Fig 11. NOX Vs BP
fuel. The methanol fumigation has higher SFC for all
The results showed that all rates of
ratios at all loads. The lower calorific value of methanol
fumigation gives lower NOx emission than diesel fuel.
is the reason for the increase of SFC in methanol
However, NOx emission increases with the rate of
fumigation. And also due to methanol fumigation, more
fumigation. Depending on engine load, NOx emission
cooling is happening inside the cylinder. Because of
is higher at low engine load than medium and higher
cooling effect more amount of fuel is needed to support
engine load. The reduction in NOx is about 9.33% at
the complete combustion and to provide the required
no load, 12.6% at 20% load, 21% at 40% load, 21.8%
amount of power.
at 60%, 14.4% at 80% load and 8.4% at full load for
Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE) is calculated
30% methanol fumigation. The formation of NO x in a
by following equation.
BTE = { Pb / [(qm,d X QLHV, d) + (qm,a X QLHV, m)] } X 100 % diesel engine strongly depends on the temperature of
Here qm,d and qm,a are mass consumption rate of combustion and along with the concentration of
diesel and methanol, QLHV, d and and QLHV, m are lower oxygen present in the combustion process. Methanol
heating value of diesel and methanol and P b is brake has a high latent heat of vaporization hence less
amount of heat is released during combustion process poor fuel distribution and low exhaust temperature,
which reduces the combustion temperature, leading to the lean fuel–air mixture regions may survive to escape
reduction of NOx formation, especially under the lean into the exhaust resulting in higher HC emissions.
conditions at lower engine loads. The variation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) with
The variation of carbon monoxide (CO) with loads of diesel and fumigation fuels was shown in
loads of diesel and fumigation fuels was shown in Figure Figure 14.
12.
1.2
D
Carbon Monoxide in % Vol
0.2 3
0 2
0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75 0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75
Brake Power in kW Brake Power in kW
Fig 12. CO Vs BP Fig 14. CO2 Vs BP
The results showed that there is a significant The results showed that there is a significant
increase in CO emission with methanol fumigation decrease in CO2 emission with methanol fumigation
compared to diesel fuel. The results showed that the compared to diesel fuel. At an average reduction of
average CO emission increase was 3.1 times, 3.8 times 2.9%, 3.5% and 4.3% is obtained for methanol
and 4.7 times of diesel value for 10%, 20% and 30% fumigation at 10%, 20% and 30% fumigation rates
methanol fumigation ratios. Methanol lowers the in- respectively. In fumigation mode, brake thermal
cylinder gas temperature, which might be not able to efficiency decreases, which results in a significant
ignite the methanol during the expansion stroke. The increase in fuel consumption, which reduces the CO2.
rapid burning of vaporized methanol and subsequent CO2 emission greatly depends on the CO emission. In
charge cooling decrease the in-cylinder temperature that fumigation mode, due to having a higher heat of
might lead to incomplete oxidation of the CO to CO2 vaporization, methanol reduces the in-cylinder
during expansion stroke, resulting and increase in CO temperature, which leads to incomplete oxidation of
emission. the CO to CO2 during the expansion stroke and thus
The variation of Hydro Carbon (HC) with loads results in an increase in CO emission and decrease in
of diesel and fumigation fuels was shown in Figure 13. CO2 emission.
700 The variation of smoke with loads of diesel
D
Hydrocarbon in ppm
300
30 D80M20
200 D70M30
100 20
0
0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75 10
Brake Power in kW
Fig 13. HC Vs BP 0
From the results, it has been clear that methanol 0 0.75 Brake
1.5 Power
2.25
in kW 3 3.75
fumigation increases the HC emission compared to diesel The result showed that methanol fumigation
fuel. Moreover, the emission increases with the level of causes low smoke emission than diesel fuel. For
fumigation and decreases with increasing engine loads. methanol fumigation it was 13-30%, 18-39% and 22-
Their investigation showed that HC emission increases 45% at 10%, 20% and 30% fumigation. There is less
from 65 ppm to 585 ppm at no load while it varies from diesel fuel consumed with increasing methanol
46 ppm to 179.4 ppm at full load for 30% methanol fumigation since a portion of diesel fuel is replaced by
fumigation. Since methanol has cooling effect on methanol. Therefore, less diesel fuel is burned during
combustion processes, as a result poor combustion combustion and combust together with the methanol/
temperature might not be able to ignite the unburned air mixture which helps to burn faster and with higher
fumigated methanol during the expansion stroke which availability of oxygen, leading to a reduction in PM
leads to increase in HC emission. Especially at low emission.
engine load condition, due to large amount of excess air,
VI. CONCLUSIONS [5]. Cheng C.H., Cheung C.S., Chan T.L., Lee S.C.,
Yao C.D., Tsang K.S., “Comparison of
Biofuels are from renewable and domestically
emissions of a direct injection diesel engine
available, which are very much suited as an alternative to
operating on biodiesel with emulsified and
conventional fuels. In this experiment fumigation method
fumigated methanol”, Fuel 2008, Volume 87,
of using methanol is investigated using electronic
pp. 1870-1879.
injection at the intake manifold. LabVIEW software was
[6]. Ganesan V, “Internal Combustion Engines”,
used for controlling the fumigation quantity for different
loads of single cylinder constant speed diesel engine. Tata McGraw Hill Education 2012.
Performance and emission characteristics were studied [7]. Goldsworthy L, “Fumigation of a heavy duty
for diesel methanol fumigation at different fumigation common rail marine diesel engine with
rates. The following conclusions are arrived: ethanol–water mixtures”, Experimental
1. When fumigation methanol is applied to the diesel Thermal and Fluid Science 2013, Volume 47,
engine, SFC increases with the percentage of fumigation pp. 48-59.
methanol at all engine loads. Around 8-36% increase of [8]. Haribabu.N, Appa rao.B.V, Adinarayana.S,
BSFC in energy basis has been found, which is due to the Sekhar.Y.M.C, Rambabu.K, “Performance and
lower calorific value of methanol. emission studies in DI-diesel engine fueled with
2. Methanol fumigation decreases BTE at low engine pongamia methyl ester injection and
loads, but there is a little increase in BTE at medium and methanol”, Journal of Engineering Science and
high engine loads. The decrease in BTE has been found Technology 2010, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp. 30-
in the range of 2–11% and an increase in BTE has been 40.
found in the range of 0.2–3%. [9]. N. Tiruvenkadam, P.R. Thyla, M.
3. Methanol fumigation decreases NOx emission Senthilkumar, M. Bharathiraja, and A.
compared to diesel fuel. NOx emission is significantly Murugesan, “Synthesis of new aluminum nano
affected by engine loads. The maximum reduction has hybrid composite liner for energy saving in
been found to be 22% compared to pure diesel fuel at diesel engines”, Energy Conversion and
lower engine load for 30% fumigation. Management 2015, Volume 98, pp. 440-448.
4. Methanol fumigation increases the CO and HC [10]. Nwafor, O. M. I. ., “Emission
emission compared to diesel fuel. The increase in CO characteristics of diesel engine running on
emission has been found in the range of 2.7- 4.7 times. vegetable oil with elevated fuel inlet
On the other hand, the increase in HC emission has been temperature”, Biomass and Bioenergy 2004,
found in the range of 2 to 6 times. Volume 27, Issue 5, pp. 507 – 511.
5. Methanol fumigation significantly decreases the CO2
emission which is due to increase in CO.
6. Methanol fumigation can substantially reduce smoke
emission compared to diesel fuel. The reductions are
mainly associated with the reduction of diesel fuel
burned. The reductions have been found between 9–45%
of overall engine load conditions.
REFERENCES
[1]. Abu-Qudais M., Haddad O., Qudaisat M., “The
effect of methanol fumigation on diesel engine
performance and emissions, Energy Conversion
and Management 2000, Volume 41, pp. 389-399.
[2]. Bhupendra Singh Chauhan, Naveen Kumar,
Shyam Sunder Pal, Yong Du Jun, “Experimental
studies on fumigation of ethanol in a small
capacity Diesel engine”, Energy 2011, Volume 36,
pp. 1030-1038 .
[3]. Bilgin A, Durgun O, Sahin Z, “The effects of
diesel–ethanol blends on diesel engine
performance”, J Energy Sources 2002; Volume 24,
pp. 431–440.
[4]. Chaplin J, Janius RB, “Ethanol fumigation of a
compression-ignition engine using advanced
injection of diesel fuel”, Trans ASAE 1987,
Volume 30, Issue 3, pp. 610–614.