A comparison of waterdiesel emulsion and timed injection of water

into the intake manifold of a diesel engine for simultaneous control

of NO and smoke emissions
K.A. Subramanian
*
Engines and Unconventional Fuels Laboratory, Centre for Energy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110 016, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 April 2009
Received in revised form 26 December 2009
Accepted 8 August 2010
Keywords:
Waterdiesel emulsion
Manifold timed water injection
Diesel engine performance
Combustion and emission characteristics
NO and smoke emissions
a b s t r a c t
Experiments were conducted to compare the effects of waterdiesel emulsion and water injection into
the intake manifold on performance, combustion and emission characteristics of a DI diesel engine under
similar operating conditions. The water to diesel ratio for the emulsion was 0.4:1 by mass. The same
waterdiesel ratio was maintained for water injection method in order to assess both potential benets.
All tests were done at the constant speed of 1500 rpm at different outputs. The static injection timing of
23 BTDC was kept as constant for all experimental tests.
In the rst phase, experiments were carried out to asses the performance, combustion and emission
characteristics of the engine using the waterdiesel emulsion. The emulsion was prepared using the sur-
factant of HLB:7. The emulsion was injected using the conventional injection system during the compres-
sion stroke. The second phase of work was that water was injected into the intake manifold of the engine
using an auxiliary injector during the suction stroke. An electronic control unit (ECU) was developed to
control the injector operation such as start of injection and water injection duration with respect to the
desired crank angle.
The experimental result indicates the both methods (emulsion and injection) could reduce NO emission
drastically in diesel engines. At full load, NO emission decreased drastically from 1034 ppm with base
diesel to 645 ppm with emulsion and 643 ppm with injection. But, NO emission reduction is lesser with
injection than emulsion at part loads. Smoke emission is lower with the emulsion (2.7 BSU) than with
water injection (3.2 BSU) as compared to base diesel (3.6 BSU). However, CO and HC levels were higher
with emulsion than water injection. As regards NO and smoke reduction, the emulsion was superior to
injection at all loads. Peak pressure, ignition delay and maximum rate of pressure rise were lesser with
water injection as compared to the emulsion. It is well demonstrated through this comparative study that
the emulsion method has higher potential of simultaneous reduction of NO and smoke emissions at all
loads than injection method.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Diesel engines play a major role in power generation, agricul-
ture, mass transportation etc. India, one of the fast developing
countries, is known as diesel driven economy as the consumption
of diesel to gasoline is about 5:1. This is mainly due to diesel en-
gine operation at higher compression ratio and leaner air fuel ratio
than SI engine resulting in higher thermal efciency. Even though
the levels of HC and CO are very lower in the diesel engines than
gasoline engine, however, it emits high levels of NO
x
and smoke
emission. The stringent emission norms pose to a big challenge
to the researchers for controlling these emissions.
The main causes of formation of particulate emission from die-
sel engines are heterogeneous airfuel mixture, poor mixing of fuel
with air, high diffusion combustion phase, fuel containing sulfur
content, high fuel density, etc. Particulate emission could be re-
duced by improving mixing rate of fuel with air, enhancing pre-
mixed combustion phase by increasing ignition delay, etc.
However, it would lead to high in-cylinder temperature resulting
in high NO
x
formation as it is mainly a function of temperature.
This conict nature leads to difculty in simultaneous control of
NO
x
and particulate emissions from diesel engines.
Several methods have been tried and reported in literatures to
control the emissions. Most in-cylinder control techniques do not
simultaneously reduce NO
x
and smoke emissions. For example,
EGR technique can reduce NO
x
signicantly but it would increase
particulate emissions where as oxygen enrichment technique
0196-8904/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2010.08.010
* Tel.: +91 011 26591247; fax: +91 011 26581121.
E-mail address: subra@ces.iitd.ac.in
Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849857
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Conversion and Management
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ enconman
could reduce smoke emission drastically but NO
x
emission would
shoot up. The combination of many techniques including after
treatment may be an option to reduce these emissions but the
additional costs including initial investment, maintenance, addi-
tional energy consumption by the devices, may be an expensive
solution with system complexity. So, a simple technique needs to
be developed to reduce NO
x
and Smoke emission simultaneously
without fuel penalty.
1.1. Waterdiesel emulsion
Modifying the fuel offers a simple way to control these emis-
sions as many researchers reported in literatures that the useful-
ness of waterdiesel emulsion on performance improvement and
emission reduction of diesel engines. Water added diesel can re-
duce NO
x
and smoke simultaneously. NO emission decreased dras-
tically due to thermal, dilution and chemical effects (enhancement
of OH radicals) of water [1]. Smoke reduction may be due to
improvement in mixing rate of fuel with air by micro-explosion
phenomenon and increase in premixed combustion phase due to
long ignition delay [2]. The effect of waterdiesel ratio up to 0.8
by mass was studied and reported a reduction in NO
x
about 60%
and smoke about 5070% at a given load (BMEP of 5.31 kg/cm
2
)
[2]. However, at lower loads, they reported a slight increase in BSFC
compared to operation on plain diesel as a result of overcooling
and over mixing of the charge. Frederic Barnaud et al. reported oxi-
des of nitrogen, smoke and particulate emission at 0.13:1 water
diesel ratio could reduce up to 30%, 80% and 50% respectively [3].
In addition, a further reduction in particulate emission of up to
90% was obtained with the use of an oxidation catalyst. The author
studied extensively on waterdiesel emulsions with ratio of 0.3:1,
0.4:1, 0.5:1 and 0.6:1, and concluded that NO
x
and smoke reduc-
tion with 0.4:1 and 0.5:1 water to diesel ratio at full load was about
33.8% and 42%, 25% and 48% respectively [4]. However, there is an
increase in CO and HC levels and drop in brake thermal efciency
at lower loads. Sheng et al. conducted experiments to study the
combustion mechanism of water in diesel fuel emulsion spray in
a combustion bomb and simulated road-load conditions. They re-
ported smoke decreased up to 30% and NO
x
level also decreased,
and the water fraction of 615% had no signicant effect on engine
smoke [5]. Anna lif et al. reported that there is a reduction in NO
x
and particulate matter but increase in CO and HC emissions level
with the increasing the water content in the fuel [6]. In addition,
they reviewed also effects of use of watervegetable oil and
waterbiodiesel emulsion in diesel engines. Nadeem et al. reported
that water emulsication has a potential of signicantly reduce the
formation of NO
x
, CO, SO
x
, particulate matter, soot and hydrocar-
bons [7]. They extensively studied the effect of temperature, stir-
ring speed and mixing time on emulsion formulation and
reported gemini surfactant (trade mark of the surfactant formu-
lated by them) has much ner and better distributed water drop-
lets as compared to those stabilized by conventional surfactant.
This information is important as formulation of waterdiesel
emulsion needs suitable surfactant. Kadota et al. reviewed recent
advances in the combustion of waterfuel emulsion, phenomeno-
logical burning process, ignition process, the ame phenomena
including soot concentration prole, etc. [8]. They concluded that
water emulsion has high potential to increase thermal efciency
and suppress the emissions such as soot, PAH, carbonaceous resi-
due and they also stressed the needs of more experimental tests
to identify the dominant mechanism and its full potential. Cherng
et al. conducted experiments and compared with w/o two phase
emulsion with O/W/O three phase emulsion and they reported that
three phase emulsion reduces bsfc, CO and NO
x
emission as com-
pared to two phase emulsion (W/O) [9]. Water-in-oil emulsion is
more suitable for diesel engines applications. This means water is
enclosed by oil droplet resulting in micro-explosion diesel sur-
rounded water particle. Micro-explosion would occur when low
boiling point of liquid (like water) surrounded by a high boiling
point of liquid such as diesel. As the heat transfer takes place from
diesel to water during compression stroke in diesel engines, the
low boiling point goes to unstable superheated state leading to mi-
cro-explosion resulting in better mixing of fuel with air. The phe-
nomenon is discussed in detailed in latter section. PM and NO
emission decreased drastically and waterdiesel emulsion has
advantage of no need of huge change in infrastructure [10]. The
use of waterdiesel emulsion in diesel engines not only reduces
NO
x
and particulate emissions simultaneously, it could also im-
prove fuel economy at higher loads [2,4]. Abu-Zaid M. studied
the effect of waterdiesel emulsion with different ratio of 0, 5,
10, 15 and 20 on performance and exhaust temperature of a diesel
engine and concluded the average increase in the brake thermal
efciency for 20% waterdiesel emulsion is approximately 3.5%
[11]. However, emulsied fuels have the problem of increase in
CO, HC and rate of pressure rise.
The waterdiesel emulsion along with other techniques such as
EGR and different injection timing. could also give high benecial
results to overcome some problems. It is reported a 55% reduction
Nomenclature
BTDC before top dead centre
bsfc brake specic fuel consumption
BMEP Brake mean effective pressure
BSU Bosch smoke unit
BP brake power
CO carbon monoxide
C
1
and C
2
constants (C
1
= 130 and C
2
= 1.4)
DI direct injection
dQ/dt heat release rate (W)
ECU electronic control unit
EGR exhaust gas recirculation
emul emulsion
HLB hydrophile lipophile balance
HC hydrocarbon
H heat transfer coefcient
inject injection
NO nitric oxide
NO
x
oxides of nitrogen
ppm part per millions
PAH poly aromatic hydrocarbon
PC personal computer
P cylinder pressure (N/m
2
)
Q
w
heat transfer to the wall (J)
RPM revolution per minute
SI spark ignition
SO
x
oxides of sulphur
t time (s)
T average gas temperature (K)
TDC top dead centre
U internal energy (J)
V cylinder volume (m
3
)
V
p
mean piston speed (m/s)
W/D water to diesel ratio
W/O water-in-oil
850 K.A. Subramanian/ Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849857
in NO
x
and 45% smoke reduction at 20% emulsion with 16.7% hot
EGR [12]. A small quantity of hydrogen peroxide (5%) could im-
prove the overall performance and emissions of a diesel engine
with waterdiesel emulsions [13]. NO
x
, smoke, CO and HC emis-
sions decreased drastically with the waterdieselhydrogen perox-
ide emulsion as compared to plain waterdiesel emulsion [13]. Use
of 10% diethyl ether along with waterdiesel emulsion (0.4:1 by
weight) can signicantly reduce HC and CO emission without ad-
verse effects on NO
x
and smoke [14]. HC and CO levels drop from
75 ppm to 40 ppm and 0.175% to 0.1% respectively at full load as
compared to neat waterdiesel emulsion. The performance and
emission characteristic of a diesel engine with waterdiesel emul-
sion can be improved by oxygen enriched air induction. CO, HC and
smoke decreases drastically at 0.4 waterdiesel ratio with oxygen
concentration of 24%. However NO
x
emission shooted up [15].
There is different optimum waterdiesel emulsion ratios re-
ported in literature. Waterdiesel emulsion (15%) was found to
be the best or optimum based on controlling the engines emission
[7]. Forty percent waterdiesel emulsion is the optimum based on
the highest fuel economy [16]. The optimum waterdiesel emul-
sion ratio was 0.5:1 by mass based on reasonable starting perfor-
mance, emulsion stability and viscosity [17]. The optimum
waterdiesel emulsion ratio was chosen as 0.4:1 and 0.5:1 based
on brake thermal efciency, emission reduction, rate of pressure
rise and engine rough running and startability [4].
Even though waterdiesel emulsion has advantages of emission
reduction and performance improvement of diesel engines, how-
ever there was an increase of CO and HC levels and rate of pressure
rise. CO and HC emission increased from 35 ppm, 0.12% with base
diesel to 60 ppm, 0.15% respectively at 0.4:1 waterdiesel ratio [4].
In addition, the emulsied fuel increased the ignition delay and
rate of pressure rise [2,4].
1.2. Water injection
Apart from the emulsion method, water can also be introduced
into the engine by way of injection into the intake air stream. The
advantages of injection are versatile of on-line variation of water
quantity, increase of volumetric efciency due to cooling effect,
uniform or homogeneous water distribution in combustion cham-
ber, etc. An increase of 1% in the specic heat of the gases in the
burned zone results in about 20% reduction in NO
x
emission and
reported a 50% reduction in NO
x
emission with water injection
(0.03 kg per kg of dry air) in the intake manifold [18]. The combi-
nation of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR: 17%) and manifold water
injection gave a 4050% reduction in NO
x
[19]. However, CO and
HC emissions increased with increase in water content with intake
air [19,20]. Smoke also increased with water induction [20].
It is clearly seen from the literature study that waterdiesel
emulsion and water injection has advantages of reduction in NO
x
and smoke emissions from diesel engines. However, there is no
information available in literatures on which method (water with
emulsion or injection) has higher potential to reduce these emis-
sions under similar operating conditions. In this direction, a com-
parison between the methods of water injection into the
manifold and waterdiesel emulsion has been made for assessing
potential benets of water addition to diesel engines under similar
operating conditions.
2. Experimental details
2.1. Engine and experiments details
A single cylinder, 4-stroke, air-cooled diesel engine with a dis-
placement volume of 661.5 cc (87.5 mm bore 110 mm stroke)
developing 4.4 kW was used for the study. The engine was run at
constant speed of 1500 rpm. The specication of test engine is gi-
ven in Table 1. The measurement accuracy and uncertainty is given
in Table 2. Commercially available diesel was used as fuel. A swing-
ing eld dynamometer was used to load the engine. A detailed lay-
out of experimental set-up is shown in Fig. 1. A turbine type ow
meter was used to measure the airow rate. Both diesel and emul-
sion ows were measured on the mass basis. An Inductive type
needle lift transducer was fabricated to determine the dynamic
injection timing.
2.2. Description of experimental procedure
Experiments were conducted at different loads including the
rated load (4.4 kW) and over load (4.75 kW) for waterdiesel emul-
sion and water injection. The waterdiesel emulsion ratio of 0.4:1
was chosen for the study as it was found to be the optimum based
on the authors earlier research work [4]. The same water content
(waterdiesel ratio: 0.4:1 by mass) was maintained for both meth-
ods and the results are compared with base diesel. The detailed
study of optimization of waterdiesel emulsion may be referred
in literature [4]. Waterdiesel emulsion was prepared using a sur-
factant (HLB = 7) with help of emulsion preparation apparatus
which is explained in Section 2.3 and the emulsion was injected
into in-cylinder during compression stroke using the main injec-
tion system. In case of water injection, plain water was injected
into intake manifold using an auxiliary injector which was con-
trolled by an ECU. A static injection timing of 23 BTDC was kept
as constant for all experimental tests. The performance and emis-
sion characteristics of the engine was measured for both methods
and the results are compared with base diesel. The pressure-crank
angle data was measured using piezo-electric transducer and TDC
encoder and the data was given as input for calculating ignition de-
lay, heat release rate and rate of pressure rise. The dynamic injec-
Table 1
Specications of the test engine.
Type Four stroke, air cooled, over head
valve, compression ignition engine
Make Kirloskar, TAF1
Number of cylinders One
Bore 87.5 mm
Stroke 110 mm
Displacement volume 661.5 cc
Compression ratio 17.5:1
Static injection timing 23 btdc
Rated power 6 BHP at 1500 rpm
Table 2
Measurement accuracy and uncertainty.
Measurements Accuracy
CO 0.01%
NO
x
1 ppm
HC 5 ppm
Smoke 0.1 BSU
Computed results Uncertainty (%)
Torque 2.1%
Time for air ow 0.36%
Mass ow rate of fuel 0.82%
Brake thermal efciency 2.3%
Cylinder peak pressure 1.4%
HC 2%
CO 2%
NO 0.5%
K.A. Subramanian / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849857 851
tion timing was measured using a needle lift sensor and it was
used for nding out ignition delay.
2.3. Measurement of pressure-crank angle data
A piezo electric pressure transducer was ush mounted on the
cylinder head for the measurement of cylinder pressure. An elec-
tro-optical sensor was developed to indicate the position of TDC
as the crank shaft rotated. A 12 bit analogue to digital converter
was used to store analogue data in digital form on a PC.
2.4. Preparation of emulsion
A mixture of diesel, water, surfactant were circulated several
times to form an emulsion using an apparatus comprising of a cen-
trifugal pump, glass jar and glass tube with a submergible nozzle
portion as shown in Fig. 2. As oil soluble surfactant (HLB < 10)
are the best for water-in-oil emulsions, the surfactant with HLB
of 7 was used for preparing the emulsion. The surfactant used
was 1% by weight and stability time for the emulsion was about
one and half days. After the emulsion prepared in off-line, then it
was immediately used in the engine.
2.5. Development of manifold timed water injection system
An electronically controlled system to inject water into the
manifold during the intake stroke for any xed crank angle dura-
tion was developed and installed on the engine. This consisted of
a high pressure water pump which fed a solenoid operated injec-
tor. An electro-optical sensor was mounted on the cam shaft to de-
tect the position of the piston. This sent out a pulse to trigger the
water injection circuit. The electronic circuit could initiate pulses
of varying width. These pulses were amplied and sent to a sole-
noid operated injector. The amount of water injected per cycle
was controlled by varying the pulse width of the signal fed to the
injector. The injector used was basically a commercially available
gasoline injector. This was mounted on the manifold such that
the water spray would not impinge on the walls. The injection
pressure was maintained at 2 bar. This pressure was found to lead
to a well atomized spray. The complete injection system is indi-
cated in Fig. 3. The injector was mounted in the manifold in such
a way that the spray of water will not impinge on the wall.
2.6. Measurement of emissions
Hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions were
measured by means of a Non Dispersive Infrared Analyzer of the
Horiba make (measuring range for CO: 010 vol.%, HC: 0
10,000 ppm). Nitric oxide (NO) was measured using a Chemilu-
minescense analyzer of Rosemount Analytical make (measuring
range: 010,000 ppm). It may be noted that NO
x
emission was
not measured and only NO emission was measured for the study.
Fig. 1. Experimental set-up.
Emulsifier (Surfactant): HLB = 7
Fig. 2. Emulsion preparation apparatus.
852 K.A. Subramanian/ Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849857
Smoke measurement was done using the standard Bosch apparatus
(scale: 010).
2.7. Calculation of ignition delay period and heat release rate
Ignition delay was calculated based on dynamic injection tim-
ing. A computer program developed in the laboratory was used
for heat release rate diagram using input of experimental pres-
sure-crank angle data, and it was calculated using rst law of ther-
modynamics as given below:
dQ=dt dU=dt P dV=dt dQ
w
=dt 1
The heat transfer (dQ/dT) was calculated using the Hohenbergs
correlation as given below [21]
H C
1
V
0:06
c
P
0:8
T
0:4
V
p
C
2

0:8
2
3. Results and discussion
The effects of using waterdiesel emulsion as the fuel have been
compared with water injection at same waterdiesel ratio (0.4:1)
on the performance, combustion and emission characteristics of
the diesel engine.
3.1. Performance characteristics of engine
It is seen from Fig. 4 that the brake thermal efciency reduces at
all outputs below diesel values with injection due to poor combus-
tion as a result of reduction in the charge temperature. In the case
of the emulsion, at high outputs, the brake thermal efciency with
the emulsion is signicantly above the base diesel value. This is
due to the enhanced premixed combustion phase and also better
mixture formation with the emulsion. When the emulsion is used,
the total injected quantity increases as compared to the diesel
mode and this will cause a greater amount of air to get entrained
into the spray and form a better mixture. In addition, the phenom-
enon of micro-explosion could also aid fuel air mixtures prepara-
tion and lead to better combustion. The micro-explosion occurs
when the low boiling point of water trapped in the high boiling
point diesel is heated upon injection into the compressed air. This
leads to a sudden expansion of water due to vaporization. This pro-
cess leads to better dispersion of the diesel which encloses the
water. This phenomenon termed as micro-explosion has been dis-
cussed by the researches Murayama [2] and Tsao [22]. Thus the
emulsion is better than water injection as regards brake thermal
efciency. However, the brake thermal efciency is below diesel
values only at low loads. It is due to overcooling of charge, which
results in poor combustion. Such a tendency has been experienced
by earlier researches also [2]. It may be noted that in the case of the
emulsion, all the water that is introduced is close to the fuel and
this has a signicant effect on combustion. That is the reason for
the reduced efciency at low loads (the temperature is already
low) with the waterdiesel emulsion (Fig. 4). With the emulsion,
water concentration near the fuel is always the same irrespective
of the load as long as the waterdiesel ratio is held constant. In
the case of water injection the water is uniformly distributed and
hence the water concentration near the fuel is lesser at low loads
where the amount of fuel injected is low. Thus the emulsion seems
to perform worse than injection at low loads.
3.2. Emission characteristics of engine
CO and HC levels are lower at low loads with the injection as
compared to the emulsion. But it is similar to the waterdiesel
emulsion at high loads (Figs. 5 and 6). However, it is always higher
than base diesel values due to incomplete combustion and use of
richer mixtures due to lower brake thermal efciency. It is re-
ported in literature that HC level starts to decrease at water to die-
sel ratio of 0.5:1 as compared to 0.4:1 and 0.3:1 and the reason for
this is still unclear [3]. Such trends in HC levels have been reported
by other researcher also Bertrand [23]. Matsuo Odaka et al. ob-
served the increasing trend of CO and HC emission with water
1. Intake manifold 6. Burette
2. Injector 7. Water pump
3. Electronic circuit 8. Heat exchanger
4. Optical encoder signal 9. Flow control valve
5. Water tank 10. Pressure gauge
1
2
7
8
6
10
3 4
5
9
Fig. 3. Water injection system.
10
15
20
25
30
35
2 0 1 3 4 5
Brake Power (kW)
B
r
a
k
e

T
h
e
r
m
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
%
)
diesel
w/d:0.4-emul
w/d:0.4-injec
Fig. 4. Comparison of brake thermal efciency with emulsion and injection.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 1 2 3 4 5
Brake Power (kW)
C
O

(
%

b
y

v
o
l
)
diesel
w/d:0.4-emul
w/d:0.4-injec
Fig. 5. Comparison of CO emission with emulsion and injection.
K.A. Subramanian / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849857 853
injection [19]. However, the HC levels are higher with emulsion as
compared to base diesel. The HC level is higher with the emulsion
as the water is closely in contact with the diesel particles and
quenches the combustion process. This is no great difference be-
tween the injection and normal diesel modes.
It is seen in Fig. 7 that the emulsion is the more effective in
reducing NO levels at given water to diesel ratio. Water injection
also leads to a signicant reduction in the NO levels at high outputs
when the injected water quantity is high. Thus it can nd that
water that is close to the fuel is more effective in controlling the
NO level as compared to the condition when it is uniformly distrib-
uted in the cylinder. Uniform distribution in the cylinder will lead
to a global temperature drop and oxygen concentration drop but
local presence of water near the fuel can reduce the oxygen con-
centration and temperature near the ame. In addition, Miyauchi
et al. reported that OH radical concentration increases by water
addition, which promotes the oxidation of hydrocarbon fragments
and leads to reduction in NO levels [1]. These factors will be
responsible for the observed trends. Since both the methods com-
pared here are mainly to control NO emission at high outputs they
seem to be equally effective on that count as shown in Fig. 8. NO
emission decreased from 975 ppm with base diesel to 645 ppm
with emulsion and 643 ppm with injection. At low outputs, emul-
sion is better. So, water injection method is not effective on NO
emission reduction at part load as shown in Fig. 9. NO level de-
creased from 459 ppm with base diesel to 226 ppm with emulsion
where as it was 369 ppm with water injection at 0.4:1 water to
diesel ratio at 1.9 kW power output (40% load).
The smoke emission reduction is most signicant with the
emulsion as seen in Fig. 10. There is a little change in the smoke
level between the pure diesel and water injection methods. This
could be due to the absence of the micro-explosion phenomenon
even though there is an additional benet from increase in OH con-
centration and premixed combustion phase by long ignition delay.
Thus the micro-explosion phenomenon may play a major role to
control smoke level with water-in-oil emulsion. Murayama [2]
0 1 2 3 4 5
Brake Power (kW)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
H
C

(
p
p
m
)
diesel
w/d:0.4-emul
w/d:0.4-injec
Fig. 6. Comparison of HC emission with emulsion and injection.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Brake Power (kW)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
N
O

(
p
p
m
)
diesel
w/d:0.4-emul
w/d:0.4-injec
Fig. 7. Comparison of NO emission with emulsion and injection.
BP: 4.4kW
Die-Inj
(643)
Die-emul
(645)
Diesel
(975)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
N
O

(
p
p
m
)
Fig. 8. Comparison of NO emission with emulsion and injection at 100% load.
BP: 1.87kW
Diesel (459)
Die-emul
(226)
Die-Inj
(369)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
N
O

(
p
p
m
)
Fig. 9. Comparison of NO emission with emulsion and injection at 40% load.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Brake Power (kW)
S
m
o
k
e

(
B
S
U
)
diesel
w/d:0.4-emul
w/d:0.4-injec
Fig. 10. Comparison of smoke emission with emulsion and injection.
854 K.A. Subramanian/ Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849857
a
n
d
M
u
l
l
e
r
-
D
e
t
h
l
e
f
s
[
2
4
]
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
b
o
t
h
m
i
c
r
o
-
e
x
p
l
o
s
i
o
n
l
e
a
d
-
i
n
g
t
o
b
e
t
t
e
r
m
i
x
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
a
i
r
a
n
d
f
u
e
l
a
n
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
O
H
r
a
d
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
t
h
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
s
[
2
,
2
4
]
.
A
t
r
a
t
e
d
l
o
a
d
(
4
.
4
k
W
)
,
s
m
o
k
e
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
f
r
o
m
3
.
6
B
S
U
w
i
t
h
b
a
s
e
d
i
e
s
e
l
t
o
2
.
7
w
i
t
h
e
m
u
l
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
o
3
.
2
B
S
U
w
i
t
h
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
t
0
.
4
:
1
w
a
t
e
r
t
o
d
i
e
-
s
e
l
r
a
t
i
o
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
F
i
g
.
1
1
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
s
m
o
k
e
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
a
t
p
a
r
t
l
o
a
d
(
F
i
g
s
.
1
0
a
n
d
1
2
)
.
I
t
m
a
y
b
e
n
o
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
F
i
g
s
.
7

1
2
)
,
a
t
a
l
l
l
o
a
d
s
,
e
m
u
l
s
i
o
n
m
e
t
h
o
d
h
a
s
h
i
g
h
e
r
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
o
f
s
i
m
u
l
-
t
a
n
e
o
u
s
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
N
O
a
n
d
s
m
o
k
e
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
a
t
a
l
l
l
o
a
d
s
t
h
a
n
i
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
m
e
t
h
o
d
.
3
.
3
.
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
r
s
w
o
r
k
A
b
r
i
e
f
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
o
m
e
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
r
s
w
o
r
k
i
s
g
i
v
e
n
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
3
.
E
v
e
n
t
h
o
u
g
h
i
t
i
s
v
e
r
y
d
i
f

c
u
l
t
t
o
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
w
o
r
k
a
s
t
h
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
-
a
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
t
y
p
e
,
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
e
n
g
i
n
e
,
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
,
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
,
a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
i
c
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
l
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
f
u
e
l
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
t
h
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
i
s
t
o
k
n
o
w
w
h
a
t
a
r
e
t
h
e
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
g
a
p
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
w
o
r
k
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
t
o
k
n
o
w
t
h
e
s
c
o
p
e
o
f
f
u
-
t
u
r
e
w
o
r
k
.
I
t
m
a
y
b
e
n
o
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
c
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
b
y
m
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
r
s
.
M
u
r
a
y
a
m
a
d
i
d
a
n
o
t
a
b
l
e
c
o
n
-
B
P
:

4
.
4

k
W
D
i
e
s
e
l

(
3
.
6
)
D
i
e
-
e
m
u
l

(
2
.
7
)
D
i
e
-
I
n
j

(
3
.
2
)
0
0
.
51
1
.
52
2
.
53
3
.
54
SMOKE (BSU)
F
i
g
.
1
1
.
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
s
m
o
k
e
w
i
t
h
e
m
u
l
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
t
1
0
0
%
l
o
a
d
.
B
P
:

1
.
8
7

k
W
D
i
e
-
I
n
j

(
0
.
5
)
D
i
e
-
e
m
u
l

(
0
.
1
)
D
i
e
s
e
l

(
0
.
3
)
0
0
.
1
0
.
2
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
6
SMOKE (BSU)
F
i
g
.
1
2
.
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
s
m
o
k
e
w
i
t
h
e
m
u
l
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
t
4
0
%
l
o
a
d
.
Table 3
Comparison of present work with other researchers work reported in literatures.
Researchers name Waterdiesel emulsion/water injection Brake thermal efciency Emission characteristics Combustion
characteristics
Low load High load CO HC NO Smoke
Author (present
work)
Waterdiesel emulsion (0.4) and water injection Decrease Increase Increase Increase Decrease Decrease Available
Murayama et al. [2] Waterdiesel emulsion (up to 0.8 by mass) Decrease Increase Increase Increase Decrease Decrease Limited information
Bertrand [23] Upto 35 vol% in emulsion No
information
No
information
No information Increase Decrease Decrease No information
Park et al. [16] Waterdiesel emulsion: 0%, 20% and 40% No
information
High No information No information No
information
No
information
No information
Nazha et al. [12] Waterdiesel emulsion: 20% + EGR ; 16.7% No
information
No
information
Increase Increase Decrease Decrease No information
Coon [25] Waterdiesel emulsion: 025% No
information
Increase Increase Increase Increase No report No information
Afy [26] Waterdiesel emulsion: 15%, 30% and 45% by
volume
No
information
No
information
Increased at high
load,
decreases at low load
Increased at high
load,
decreases at low load
Increased Increased No information
Sheng et al. [5] Waterdiesel emulsion: 020% by volume No
information
No
information
No information No information Decrease Decrease No information
Nadeem [7] Waterdiesel emulsion: 515% Decrease Decrease Decrease No information Decrease Decrease No information
Abu-Zaid [11] Waterdiesel emulsion: 0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%) Increase Increase No information No information No
information
No
information
No information
Odaka et al. [19] EGR:17% + water injection 35 g/kg of air No
information
No
information
Increase Increase Decrease No change No information
Note: Increase or decrease of performance and emission characteristics as compared to base diesel.
K
.
A
.
S
u
b
r
a
m
a
n
i
a
n
/
E
n
e
r
g
y
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
5
2
(
2
0
1
1
)
8
4
9

8
5
7
8
5
5
tribution in this eld of waterdiesel emulsion but they did not re-
port on water injection. It is well established that waterdiesel
emulsion could give benecial results in NO
x
and smoke/PM reduc-
tion but the associated problems of high CO, HC, rate of pressure
rise, low BSFC at lower loads, etc. needs to be addressed. Some of
the problems could be overcome using it along with other tech-
niques such as hydrogen peroxide and diethyl ether [13,14]. The
researchers followed different strategies on preparation of
waterdiesel emulsion using different surfactants, injection meth-
od, type of emulsion such as water-in-oil, oil-in-water and three
phase emulsion. There is no report available till now including
the present paper on the effects of surfactants in emulsion on en-
gine performance and emission characteristics and it needs to be
studied in future. In addition, emulsion has drawbacks of stability
problems, instantaneous control and variation of water quantity
with respect to load, etc. In these aspects, water injection gets
more important to address some problems. In case of water injec-
tion, a very few information are available. Masahiro Ishida et al.
and Matsuo Odaka et al. reported the benets of water injection
on NO
x
emission reduction [18,19]. But CO and HC emission in-
creases and no change in smoke emission. Water injection method
may be an effective technique for NO
x
emission with penality of
other emissions. If NO
x
emission is a primary target, EGR may be
a viable solution as it does not need any additional system. There
is no information available on simultaneous reduction of NO
x
and
smoke emission using water injection. So the lack of information
on both methods in literatures, the research work was carried out.
3.4. Combustion characteristics of engine
The ignition delay is much higher with the emulsion as com-
pared to the water injection (Fig. 13). With water injection the
temperature at the time of fuel injection will be lower than diesel
values as water that is injected during the intake stroke will vapor-
ize and cool the air. This will lead to an increase in the ignition de-
lay. With the emulsion even though there is no change in the air
temperature at the time of injection, the presence of water along
with diesel will increase the specic heat of the droplets (since
the specic heat of water is higher than that of diesel). The droplet
size could also be different for the emulsion as compared to neat
diesel. These factors affect the ignition delay with the emulsion.
The ignition delay with the emulsion is 11.7 btdc at 4.7 kW as
against 9.7 btdc at the same output with water injection. The peak
pressure and maximum rate of pressure rise are also higher with
the emulsion due to the high ignition delay (Figs. 14 and 15). Thus
engine operation is rough with the emulsion. Premixed combus-
tion phase increased as compared to diesel due to long ignition de-
lay and is slightly lesser with water injection than the emulsion. In
case of injection the diffusion combustion phase is higher than
emulsion due to lesser ignition delay as shown in Fig. 16.
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 1 2 3 4 5
Brake Power (kW)
I
g
n
i
t
i
o
n

D
e
l
a
y

(
c
a
)
diesel
w/d:0.4-emul
w/d:0.4-injec
Fig. 13. Comparison of ignition delay with emulsion and injection.
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
0 1 2 3 4 5
Brake Power (kW)
P
e
a
k

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
b
a
r
)
diesel
w/d:0.4-emul
w/d:0.4-injec
Fig. 14. Comparison of peak pressure with emulsion and injection.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 1 2 3 4 5
Brake Power (kW)
M
a
x
.
R
a
t
e

o
f

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

R
i
s
e

(
b
a
r
/
c
a
)
diesel
w/d:0.4-emul
w/d:0.4-injec
Fig. 15. Comparison of maximum rate of pressure rise with emulsion and injection.
320 340 360 380 400
Crank Angle (deg)
-40
0
40
80
120
H
e
a
t

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

R
a
t
e

(
J
/
d
e
g
-
c
a
)
diesel
w/d:0.4-emul
w/d:0.4-injec
load : 80%
Fig. 16. Comparison of effect of injection and emulsion on heat release rates at 80%
load.
856 K.A. Subramanian/ Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849857
4. Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn based on experimental re-
sults by comparing the two methods at the same waterdiesel ra-
tio of 0.4:1 as given below.
The brake thermal efciency is reduced at all outputs below
diesel values with water injection due to poor combustion. At high
outputs, the brake thermal efciency with the emulsion is signi-
cantly above the values with water injection. It is even better than
base diesel operation at full load. In the case of the emulsion the
brake thermal efciency is below diesel values only at low loads.
At full load, brake thermal efciency is 30.6% with water injection
where as 32.6% with waterdiesel emulsion at 0.4:1 water to diesel
ratio.
CO and HC levels are lower at low loads with water injection as
compared to the emulsion. But it is similar to the levels with
waterdiesel emulsion at high loads.
Reduction in NO level is less signicant with water injection as
compared to the emulsion at low loads. The emulsion is the more
effective in reducing NO level at a given water to diesel ratio.
Water injection also leads to a signicant reduction in the NO level
at high outputs when the injected water quantity is high. Since
both the methods are studied mainly to control NO emission at
high outputs they seem to be equally effective on that count. NO
levels are 398 ppm, 477 ppm at 60% load and 645 ppm and
643 ppm at 100% load with emulsion and injection respectively.
Smoke emission is lower with the emulsion than water
injection. It was 2.7 BSU with neat waterdiesel emulsion as com-
pared to 3.2 BSU with water injection at full load.
The ignition delay is much higher with the emulsion as com-
pared to water injection. The ignition delay with the emulsion is
11.7 btdc at 4.7 kW as against 9.7 btdc at the same output with
water injection. The peak pressure and maximum rate of pressure
rise are also higher with the emulsion due to the high ignition
delay.
The diffusion combustion phase is prominent with water injec-
tion than the emulsion.
On the whole waterdiesel emulsion is more effective in
improving full load brake thermal efciency and lowering NO
and smoke levels. The method of water injection at the same water
to diesel ratio leads to lesser adverse effects on HC and CO levels
and also to better part load performance. However it is not as effec-
tive as the emulsion in reducing smoke and NO levels at a given
water to diesel ratio. Waterdiesel emulsion results in higher igni-
tion delays, peak pressures and rates of pressure rise. It can be con-
cluded that the emulsion method has higher potential of
simultaneous reduction of NO and smoke emissions at all loads
than injection method.
Acknowledgement
The author is very thankful to Prof. A. Ramesh, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, I.I.T. Madras for his suggestions during
this research work.
References
[1] Miyauchi T, Mori Y, Yamaguchi T. Effect of steam addition on NO formation. In:
15th Symposium (international) on combustion. The Combustion Institute,
USA; 1981.
[2] Murayama Tadashi, Tsukahara Minoru, Morishima Yaushi, Miyamoto Noboru.
Experimental reduction in NO
x
, smoke and BSFC in a diesel engine using
uniquely produced water (080%) to fuel emulsion. Society of Automotive
Engineers. SAE paper no. 780224; 1978.
[3] Barnaud Frederic, Schmelze Pierre, Schulz Philippe. Aquazole: an original
emulsied waterdiesel fuel for heavy-duty applications. Society of
Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 2001-01-1861; 2001.
[4] Subramanian KA, Ramesh A. A study on the use of waterdiesel emulsions in a
DI diesel engine. In: 2nd International SAE-India mobility conference. IIT
Madras, SAE paper no. 2001-28-0005; 2001.
[5] Sheng HZ, Chen L, Zhang ZP, Wu CK, An C, Cheng CQ. The droplet group micro
explosions in water-in-oil emulsion sprays and their effects on diesel engine
combustion. In: Twenty fth symposium (international on combustion/the
combustion institute); 1994. p. 175181.
[6] Anna Lif, Krister Holmberg. Water-in-diesel emulsions and related systems.
Adv Colloid Interface Sci 2006;123126:2319.
[7] Nadeem M, Rangkuti C, Anuar K, Haq MRU, Tan IB, Shah SS. Diesel engine
performance and emission evaluation using emulsied fuels stabilized by
conventional and Gemini surfactant. Fuel 2006;85:21119.
[8] Kadota T, Yamasaki H. Recent advances in the combustion of water fuel
emulsion. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2002;28:385404.
[9] Cherng-Yuan Lin, Kuo-Hug Wang. Diesel engine performance and emission
characteristics as fuel. Fuel 2004;83:53745.
[10] Ravikumar TS, Basar Paul D, Michael G.Jensen and Ken Friis Hansen, Emulsied
diesel an immediate and effective solution for diesel exhaust emission
reduction. Society of Automotive Engineers. In: 2nd International SAE India
mobility conference. SAE paper no. 2001-28-0037; 2001.
[11] Abu Zaid M. Performance of single cylinder direct injection diesel engine using
water fuel emulsions. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:697705.
[12] Nazha MAA, Rajakaruna H, Wagstaff SA. The use of emulsion, water induction
and EGR for controlling diesel engine emissions. Society of Automotive
Engineers. SAE paper no. 2001-01-1941; 2001.
[13] Subramanian KA, Ramesh A. Use of hydrogen peroxide to improve the
performance and reduce emissions of a CI engine fuelled with water diesel
emulsion. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 2008-01-0653: SP-
2108; 2008.
[14] Subramanian KA, Ramesh A. Use of diethyl ether along with waterdiesel
emulsion in a DI diesel engine. Fuels and lubricants. SAE transactions. SAE
paper no. 2002-01-2720. 2002;111(4):13611367.
[15] Subramanian KA, Ramesh A. Experimental Investigation on the use of water
diesel emulsion with oxygen enriched air in a DI diesel engine. Society of
Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 2001-01-0205: SP-1592; 2001.
[16] Park JW, Huh KY, Park KH. Experimental study on the combustion reduction to
control exhaust emissions from heavy-duty diesel powered vehicles. Society of
Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 972961; 1997.
[17] Tsukahara Minoru, Yoshimoo Yasufumi, Murayama Tadashi. W/O emulsion
realizes low smoke and efcient operation of DI engines without high pressure
injection. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 890449; 1989.
[18] Ishida Masahiro, Ueki Hironoku, Sakauguo Daisaku. Prediction of NO
x
reduction to control exhaust emissions from heavy-duty diesel powered
vehicles. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 972961; 1997.
[19] Odaka Matsuo, Koike Noriyuki, Tsukamoto Yujiro, Kazuysawa, Yoshida Koichi.
Effects of EGR with a supplemental manifold water injection to control
exhaust emissions from heavy-duty diesel powered vehicles. Society of
Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 910739; 1991.
[20] Sarvi Arto, Kilpinen Pia, Zevenhoven Ron. Emissions from large-scale medium-
speed diesel engines: inuence of direct water injection and common rail. Fuel
Process Technol 2009;90:22231.
[21] Hohenberg GF. Advanced approaches for heat transfer calculation. Society of
Automotive Engineers. Paper no. 790825.
[22] Tsao KC, Wang CI. Pufng and micro-explosion phenomena of water emulsion
fuels. Society of Automotive Engineers. Paper no. 860305.
[23] Bertrand D Hsu. Combustion of water-in-diesel emulsion in an experimental
medium speed diesel engine. Society of Automotive Engineers. Paper no.
860300.
[24] Muller-dethlefs K, Schlader AF. The effect of steam on ame temperature,
burning velocity and carbon formation in hydrocarbon ames. Combust Flame
27:20515.
[25] Coon CW. Multi-cylinder diesel engine tests with unstablised water-in-fuel
emulsions. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 810250.
[26] Afy EM, Korah NS, Dickey DW. The effect of air charge temperature on
performance, ignition delay and exhaust emissions of diesel engines using W/
O emulsion as fuel. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 870555.
K.A. Subramanian / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849857 857