Applied Energy 239 (2019) 948–956

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Experimental investigation into effects of high reactive fuel on combustion T

and emission characteristics of the Diesel - Natural gas Reactivity Controlled
Compression Ignition engine
⁎
Ehsan Ansari , Tyler Menucci, Mahdi Shahbakhti, Jeffrey Naber
Mechanical Engineering – Engineering Mechanics, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr, Houghton, MI 49931, USA

H I GH L IG H T S

• Cetane number is the most important variables that affects the RCCI performance.
• High reactive diesel in RCCI engine is beneficial in reducing HC and CO emissions.
• High reactive diesel reduces the cycle by cycle variation in RCCI combustion mode.
• Diesel fuel with high cetane number improves the emission reductions and combustion stability.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI) engines hold promise for decreasing NOx and particulate
RCCI emissions. RCCI engines use direct injection (DI) to introduce a high reactivity fuel into the cylinder while a
Cetane number lower reactivity fuel is port fuel injected (PFI). A large reactivity difference between high reactive (diesel) and
High reactive diesel low reactive (natural gas) fuels provides a strong control variable for phasing and shaping combustion heat
Natural gas
release in RCCI engines.
Dual fuel engines
Two diesel fuels, a High Reactive Diesel (HRD) fuel with a cetane number (CN) of 85 and a U.S. Ultra-Low
Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel with a cetane number of 49 were selected for this study. The effects of these two diesel
fuels with methane as the low reactivity premixed fuel were compared in RCCI combustion mode and in
Conventional Diesel Combustion (CDC) mode.
The hypothesis is that using a HRD fuel in RCCI applications, with a double injection strategy, increases the
reactivity of the mixture in the squish region, promoting combustion and consequently reducing unburned
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. These emissions are generally difficult to control in RCCI combustion at
high Blend Ratio (BR). In addition, a larger reactivity difference between the two fuels in RCCI applications,
extends the combustion duration and reduces the Maximum Pressure Rise Rate (MPRR) and in-cylinder peak
pressure. The reduction in MPRR in RCCI combustion mode makes it possible to operate the engine at higher
engine loads without exceeding the MPRR mechanical constraint.
The experiments were performed on a 1.9L inline 4 cylinder turbocharged compression ignition (CI) engine
modified for dual fuel operation at an engine speed of 1500 RPM and 8 bar IMEP. A full factorial Design of
Experiment (DOE) test program and analysis was conducted with four input variables including the diesel fuel
reactivity, BR, Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) and Direct Injection (DI) strategy and at two levels of interest.
This analysis was used to quantify the impact of the independent input variables on engine out emissions,
performance, and MPRR mechanical constraint. Following the DOE testing and analysis the optimum injection
strategy to maximize the Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE) was found for both fuels by sweeping the main Start of
Injection timing (SOImain).
The results of the DOE analysis showed that the cetane number is the most significant factor that effects HC
and CO emissions. The experimental results showed that HRD fuel provides a 2% improvement in brake-thermal
efficiency, a 14 g/kW.hr reduction in HC emissions, and 0.5% lower Coefficient of Variation (COV) of Indicated
Mean Effective Pressure (IMEP) compared to the baseline diesel-NG RCCI combustion.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: eansari@mtu.edu (E. Ansari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.256
Received 17 November 2018; Received in revised form 26 January 2019; Accepted 31 January 2019
0306-2619/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Ansari et al.
1. Introduction
Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) have been the main power
source for light and heavy duty vehicles applications for over a century.
There is still significant potential to improve ICE brake thermal effi-
ciency and reduce emissions. In the past two decades, Low Temperature
Combustion (LTC) engines have shown significant improvement in BTE
while reducing NOx and PM emissions.
There are several different LTC strategies including Premixed
Charge Compression Ignition (PCCI), Homogeneous Charge
Compression Ignition (HCCI), and Reactivity Controlled Compression
Ignition (RCCI).
The reactivity difference between high and low reactive fuels in
RCCI application plays an important role in controlling the combustion
phasing and shaping the heat release curve [1–35]. Benajes and his
colleagues have studied the effect of piston bowl shape and injection
strategy on RCCI performance [2]. Hanson focused on the effect of
biodiesel and optimum injection strategy engine out emission [10], and
an in depth study has been done by Splitter to investigate the effect of
intake P, T and φ on heavy duty RCCI engine performance and emission
[15]. Several studies have been done recently to see the effect of dif-
ferent low reactive fuels on combustion and emissions in RCCI engines
[2,36–37]. A summary of utilizing these different low reactive fuels
with high cetane number fuels in RCCI combustion mode is provided in
Table 1.
Few studies investigated the effects of fuel oxygenate and cetane
improver on RCCI performance and engine out emission. Most of the
studies covered the changes in reactivity on the low reactive fuel side
and used an identical high reactive fuel. 2-Ethylhexyl Nitrate (2-EHN)
and Diethyl Ether (C2 H5 OC2 H5) , DEE, are the most common fuel ad-
ditives in LTC and conventional combustion applications. It has been
observed that both additives are completely miscible with diesel fuel in
any proportion. The potential disadvantage of 2-EHN and DEE are that
the nitrate and hydrogen group manifest themselves as NOx and HC
emissions [2,6,36–39].
Researches at Universitat Politècnica de València focused on dif-
ferent low reactive fuels including E10-95, E20-95, E10-98 and E85 as
PFI fuel and Diesel B7 as DI fuel in a heavy duty RCCI engine [2]. They
have realized that, for all engine loads, E20-95, E10-98 and E10-95
showed similar trends in combustion phasing and duration at a fixed
injection strategy. The physicochemical properties of E85 resulted in
unstable combustion behavior. Thus a lower blending ratio of ethanol
was used at medium and low loads for better combustion stability.
From an emission stand point, it was observed that the NOx emission
trend was similar for all fuels for all diesel SOI. It was observed that
higher blend ratio leads to higher HC and CO emission during the
combustion process [2].
A similar experimental study has been done on a single cylinder
engine fueled with n-heptane/gasoline and n-heptane/ethanol as high
and low reactive fuels respectively [37]. The results showed that higher
latent heat of vaporization and lower cetane number of ethanol results
Table 1
Cetane improver studies available in literature.
Different Low Reactive Fuel
Experimental • Injection timing & BR – Heavy Duty – [Benajes-2015][2]
• BR sweep – Light Duty – [Qian-2015][37]
• [DelVescovo-2015][51]
Different high and low reactive fuel – CA50 sweep – Heavy Duty
• Engine
Numerical speed, T – Heavy Duty – [Kakaee-2015][36]
• [DelVescovo-2015][51]
IVC
Different high and low reactive fuel – CA50 sweep – Heavy Duty
949
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 948–956
in significant delay in the combustion phasing. It was also observed that
using oxygenated fuel in PFI showed significant improvement in soot
reduction. The experimental results showed that at the same operating
condition, a reduction of soot up to 50% was obtained with ethanol/n-
heptane in comparison to gasoline/n-heptane RCCI [37].
Another study was completed at the University of Wisconsin to in-
vestigate the effect of fuel additive on single fuel RCCI engine [6]. In
this study, gasoline PFI was selected as the low reactive fuel while the
high reactivity DI fuel was gasoline mixed with an EHN cetane im-
prover. This study has been done with three different volume fractions
of the cetane improver and the results were compared with baseline
gasoline-diesel RCCI engine [6]. The results of the analysis showed that
the control of the combustion phasing (CA50) is not sensitive to the
concentration of the cetane improver, which means it is not a strong
function of DI fuel reactivity [6].
In another study that was completed at the University of Wisconsin
[38], the authors characterized the RCCI performance with low reactive
fuel (as PFI) and same fuel mixed with cetane improver (as DI). They
have done this study on gasoline, ethanol, methanol and blends of the
alcohol and gasoline. They have realized that a larger amount of cetane
improver is needed for alcohol fuels while less cetane improver is
needed for methanol to reach a certain level of fuel reactivity. It was
realized that 2-EHN increases the fuel reactivity more than di-tert-butyl,
which is consistent with previous studies. Based on the results they
discovered that methanol with cetane improver performed comparably
to diesel fuel, but the major issue with this fuel is the inability to control
the combustion phasing. The emission results of this study showed that
methanol + cetane improver performed same as diesel but it showed
higher MPRR in comparison to diesel [36,38].
In another numerical study from University of Wisconsin, the re-
searchers focused on RCCI and HCCI combustion using low reactive iso-
butanol and same fuel mixed with di-tert-butyl (DTBP) cetane im-
prover. The result of this analysis showed that high amount of DTBP is
needed in DI fuel due to the low reactivity of iso-butanol. Using high DI
fuel was also resulted in higher heat transfer loss near squish regions
[40].
Other studies have been completed in Lund University in Sweden
and Istituto Motori CNR in Italy to explore the effect of different engine
calibration parameters on gasoline Partially Premixed Combustion
(PPC) and CH4-diesel engine [41–45]. Through full factorial DOE in
gasoline PPC engine, they realized that increasing the rail pressure
improves the brake efficiency significantly. EGR, reduces the NOx
emission up to 0.45 g/kW.hr and advancing the CA50 increases the
brake efficiency by 1% [41–42]. A similar analysis have been com-
pleted on a CH4-diesel dual fuel engine to find out the optimum com-
pression ratio according to the Euro 6 standard. They have realized that
compression ratio of 15.5 provides the best performance and best CO2
reduction among other compression ratios [43–45].
From the literature study, it is realized that there is no numerical or
experimental study available in literatures that covers the effect of
diesel fuel with high cetane number (racing diesel) on RCCI engine
Different High Reactive Fuel
• PFI Gasoline and Gasoline + EHN at different levels for DI – Light Duty – [Dempsey-
2015][6]
• PFI Gasoline and high reactive diesel – IVC sweep – Heavy Duty [Wang-2017][52]
• This work – PFI CH and different DI fuel – SOI sweep
• Different
4 main
DI fuel in RCCI and HCCI – Performance and emission comparison – Heavy
duty – [Wang-2015][40]
E. Ansari et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 948–956

performance and engine out emissions. This study focused to quantify Table 2
the effectiveness of different input variables (including BR, fuel re- Engine Specifications.
activity, injection strategy and EGR) through full factorial Design of Cylinder arrangement I4
Experiment (DOE) at 1500 RPM and 8 bar IMEP. In addition, engine Displacement 1.89 L
performance and engine out emissions are compared between HRD-NG Bore/Stroke 79.5/95.5 (mm)
and ULSD-NG at different injection strategies. Compression Ratio 17:1
Max. Power 66 kW (90 hp) @3750 RPM
This paper is organized as follows. The next section explains the Max. Torque 210 Nm (155 ft-lb) @ 1900 RPM
experimental setup along with design of experiments. The hydraulic IVO 354 (°BTDC)
delay of the injector are quantified based on injection timings and IVC 169 (°BTDC)
pressures. Then the SOImain sweep is performed at fixed load and BR; EVO 162 (°ATDC)
EVC 351 (°ATDC)
and experimental results are compared and discussed.

2. Instrumentation and experimental setup Table 3

DI and PFI fuel injectors specifications [1].
To complete this study, a 1.9L inline 4 cylinder Turbocharged Direct
Fuel Injector Specification BOSCH CRDI - DI BOSCH NGI2 - PFI
Injection (TDI) Compression Ignition (CI) engine was used. As it is
shown in Fig. 1, the engine is modified for NG-diesel RCCI operation. Number of injection holes 6 4
The engine is connected to a 150 kW Dynamitic 8100 eddy-current Injector hole diameter (mm) 0.165 NA
absorption dynamometer. This dynamometer has a maximum speed of Spray included angle (°) 144 15

6000 RPM. The brake power was calculated by brake torque on the
dyno which was measured by a strain gage load cell [1].
expansion in each cycle and Vs is the swept volume by the piston.
High pressure and low-pressure loop EGR were installed between
Other low-speed data including air flow and various temperatures
the intake and exhaust ports of the engine. A small throttle valve in low-
were logged using National Instrument (NI) hardware. Engine specifi-
pressure EGR was installed for precise control of EGR rate. The intake
cations are provided in Table 2. Table 3 shows the specifications of DI
manifold was modified in order to install NG Port Fuel Injectors (PFI).
and PFI injectors in this study.
This modification allowed the injectors to spray the fuel right into the
The DI fuels in this work were ULSD and HRD (which is designed for
intake ports. An AVL GH15D piezoelectric pressure transducer was used
racing applications by VP Racing Fuels). This HRD fuel has the newest
to sense the in-cylinder high-speed pressure data. The high-speed data
diesel race formula. Initial tests showed HRD offers more power and
including in-cylinder pressure, Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP) and
more consistent engine temperature at high engine load condition [47].
fuel flow were recorded by Advance Combustion Analysis Program
The PFI fuel was CH4 (methane) with a minimum purity of 99.5%. Fuel
(ACAP) with 1-degree crank angle resolution. The combustion related
properties are listed in Table 4.
parameters such as burn duration (B ) and crank angles for fuel mass
A MotoTron MPC-555 Blackoak ECU was used to control and
fraction burnt were computed using the following equation [46]:
monitor the engine during experiments. This controller was pro-
V (i − 1) ⎞ V (i − 1) grammed in order to enable the user to control the fuel injector timing,
B (i) = ⎡P (i) − ⎛ ⎜ ⎟ γ × P (i − 1) ⎤ duration, injection pressure and the EGR throttle in real time. The high-
⎢ ⎝ V (i ) ⎠ ⎥ Vs (1)
⎣ ⎦
pressure fuel pump was driven by the engine’s timing belt.
where P and V are the in cylinder pressure and corresponding volume HORIBA MEXA-1600D/DEGR was used for exhaust emission
and γ is the average isentropic coefficient during compression and

Fig. 1. Schematic view of NG-Diesel engine experimental setup.

950
E. Ansari et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 948–956

Table 4 4. Experimental results

Fuel Properties.
Fuel Type ULSD HRD CH4 4.1. The effect of extended EGR on CDC mode

Total Sulfur (ppm) 7 <1 0 Experiments were conducted in CDC mode with two fuels (ULSD
Cetane Index 48.7 84.8 N/A
Boiling Point (°C) 184 145 −161
Water Content 34 66 0
Lower Heating Value (MJ/kg) 42.89 44.06 50.01
measurements. This system includes three different analyzers: CO/CO2
analyzer (AIA-260), O2/CO2 analyzer (INA-260), and THC/NOx ana-
lyzer (FCA-266). The FCA-266 analyzer used Flame Ionization
Detection (FID) to measure the total HC in exhaust sample. Accuracy
and operating range of the emission analyzer for exhaust gas emission
measurements are listed in Table 5. The sampling of the exhaust gasses
was done in dry conditions.
An AVL 415SE Smoke Meter was used to measure the soot content of
the exhaust gas. This unit is capable of measuring the extremely low
soot concentration in the exhaust gas, which makes it suitable for dual
fuel diesel-NG applications with low smoke emissions. The measure-
ment accuracy of the pressure sensors, flow meters, encoder, soot and
smoke measurements are provided in Table 6.
The Rate Of Injection (ROI) and the hydraulic delay of the DI in-
jector was measured through BOSCH Rate of Injection method [48].
The back pressures are selected according to the in-cylinder pressure at
the exact DI SOI timing in engine conditions. This helps to distinguish
the hydraulic delay of the injector (correlated to the injection pressure
and back pressure and etc.) and the ignition delay of the fuel (correlated
to the fuel cetane number, reactivity of the mixture and chemical
composition).
The results of hydraulic delay tests of the injector for ULSD and
HRD, measured through BOSCH ROI method are shown in Table 7. The
ROI test results showed that HRD has around 0.07 ms longer injection
delay in compare to ULSD. This difference is equal to less than 1 CAD at
1500 RPM.
3. Design of Experiment
Full factorial DOE analysis (2 k) with 4 input variables at two dif-
ferent levels of interests were experimentally investigated to quantify
the impact of different input variables on engine out emission, perfor-
mance and combustion characteristics. Table 8 shows the input vari-
ables that were studied in this work.
The proposed test matrix which covers all the possible combinations
of input variables is shown in Table 9. The DI diesel fuel injection
pressure was constant at 400 bar and NG injection pressure was con-
stant at 4.1 bar.
In this study, energy-based BR, according to equation (2), was used
to quantify the NG diesel fraction. ṁ is the fuel flow rate and QLHV is the
lower heating value of fuels [1].
ṁ NG . QLHV NG
BR% = × 100
ṁ NG . QLHV NG + ṁ Diesel . QLHV Diesel
As previously shown in references [1,48], the EGR percentage is a
strong variable to control NOx, combustion phasing and MPRR. EGR
percentage is calculated based on the oxygen concentration (O2%)
difference between the intake and exhaust ports as shown in equation
(3).
and HRD) while increasing the EGR from 0 to 40% (at constant fuel
injection pulse width and injection timing). This experiment was done
to quantify the effect of EGR on ignition delay. A constant 1500 RPM
engine speed and 8 bar IMEP engine load was selected for the non EGR
case. Same SOI was used for both fuels to have similar back-pressure
effect on hydraulic delay of the injector. The DI SOI and duration were
kept constant for all cases and low pressure loop EGR throttle position
was the only variable to control the EGR ratio.
The location of 10% mass fraction burned (CA10) and the Burn
Duration of 0 to 10% (BD0010) are shown in Fig. 2. Initially the fuel
with higher cetane number (HRD) had 1° shorter burn duration, and
this difference increases to 5° at 40% EGR ratio.
Fig. 3 shows the location of 50% mass fraction burned (CA50) and
the 0 to 50% burn duration (BD0050). As it is shown in Fig. 3, no
significant difference was observed in BD0050 between ULSD and HRD
for 0 to 20% EGR, but it showed significant difference at higher EGR
ratio. At 30% and 40% EGR ratios, HRD consumed the 50% of the total
fuel 10 CAD faster than ULSD. The shorter burn duration of HRD pro-
vides better control of CA50 at higher EGR ratios without increasing the
cycle by cycle variation (that is defined by COV of IMEP) (see Fig. 4).
Although the hydraulic delay of the injector with HRD is around
0.07 ms longer for all the back pressures, it showed faster ignition time
(BD0010 and BD0050) in comparison with ULSD. Running the RCCI
combustion mode at higher engine loads is slightly difficult due to the
high MPRR. This problem can be solved by running the engine with a
high level of cooled EGR. Running the engine with high EGR will extend
the combustion event (burn duration). A longer burn duration make it
difficult to have precise control of the combustion phasing (CA50).
Longer combustion duration also increase the combustion instability
which is defined by the COV of IMEP. The results of the extended EGR
test and ROI test in CDC mode for both fuels show that, utilizing the
high reactive DI fuel might be a solution to run the RCCI combustion
mode with EGR at high engine load without increasing the COV of
IMEP. The COV comparison at different EGR ratio is shown in figure
below.
4.2. DOE analysis in RCCI mode
Sixteen tests were performed in RCCI mode to cover all of the
combinations of input variables in this study. The experimental results
were studied through a DOE analysis using Minitab17 software to
quantify the effect of input variables on selected outputs. Table 10
shows the most effective input variables (including EGR%, BR%, and
SOImain and cetane number) and their confidence in controlling the
outputs (including MPRR, CO, HC, NOx, BD0010, BTE, CA50 and soot).
As it is clear in Table 10, cetane number and EGR ratio showed equal
amount of effectiveness in controlling the CO emissions, both having a
98% confidence. Regarding HC emission, the cetane number and BR are
(2)
the most effective factors with 100% and 95% confidence respectively.
Another factor in reducing HC emission is implementing a double in-
jection strategy for the high reactivity DI fuel, this produces a highly
Table 5
Emission Measurement System [1].

(O2 %)ambient − (O2 %)intake Gases Unit Measurement Range

EGR% = × 100
(O2 %)ambient − (O2 %)exhaust (3)
CO % 10 vol
1500 RPM is selected since the peak torque of this engine is at this CO2 % 16 vol
NO/NOx ppm 0–2000
engine speed. Based on the previous studies from same authors [1,23],
O2 % 0–10 vol
15% EGR is the sweep spot between stable combustion and perfect THC ppm 0–20000
dilution for NOx reduction purposes.

951
E. Ansari et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 948–956

Table 6 4.3. Sweep of second injection timing in RCCI mode

Measurement accuracy of the sensors.
Sensors Resolution Unit To do the side by side comparison between NG-HRD and NG-ULSD,
main injection timing sweep (SOImain) tests were performed. These
AVL smoke meter 0.01 mg/m3 experiments were performed at 1500 RPM and 8 bar IMEP using a 90%
Pressure transducer 19 pC/bar
energy based BR. Fig. 5 shows the COV of IMEP for both combinations
Encoder 1 deg
Micromotion Coriolis flow meter
of fuels (NG-ULSD and NG-HRD). Although all cases have COV of IMEP
Maximum flow rate 108 kg/hr in stable range, less than < 3%, the results showed that NG-HRD has a
Zero stability 0.002 kg/hr more stable combustion in comparison to NG-ULSD. As the SOImain
Mass flow accuracy ± 0.05 % timing is retarded, the difference in combustion stability between the
Volume flow accuracy ± 0.05 %
two fuel combinations increases
Mass & Volume repeatability ± 0.025 %
Density accuracy ± 0.2 kg/m3 Figs. 6 and 7 show the HC and CO emission comparison between
Air flow measurement NG-HRD and NG-ULSD fuel combination. As it is clear in the figures, a
LFE air flow rate accuracy ± 0.86 % significant reduction of both HC and CO levels were observed when
LFE air flow rate repeatability 0.1 %
using NG-HRD in comparison to NG-ULSD. The results of the DOE
Differential pressure sensor range 0–2.49 kPa
Differential pressure sensor accuracy ± 0.3 %
analysis (Table 10) showed that the fuel reactivity (CN) is the most
Differential pressure sensor repeatability ± 0.05 % important factor in controlling the HC and CO emissions. The trend of
the HC emission is also similar for the cases that were performed with
15% EGR. NG-HRD produced less HC emission in comparison to NG-
Table 7 ULSD while it has more stable combustion (lower COV of IMEP) as
Hydraulic delay of Bosch Common Rail fuel Injector at 400 bar injection pres- previously discussed in Fig. 5.
sure and different back pressures. Fig. 8 shows the BTE comparison between NG-HRD and NG-ULSD
DI Start of Injection (°ATDC) SOImain@-15 SOImain@-10 SOImain@-5 for EGR and non EGR cases. The BTE of the NG-ULSD was slightly
higher for advanced main injection timings such as −15 and
DI Back Pressure (kPa) 2600 3200 3800 −10°BTDC, but the trend was reversed for retarded SOImain timing of
ULSD Hydraulic Delay (ms, °CA) 0.43, 3.94 0.43, 3.92 0.43, 3.90
HRD Hydraulic Delay (ms, °CA) 0.52, 4.67 0.51, 4.59 0.5, 4.50
−5 and 0°BTDC. This trend reversal can be better understood by
looking at the location of CA50 for each fuel with respect to the main
injection timing as shown in Fig. 9. Due to the shorter burn duration of
Table 8 NG-HRD, the 50% of mass fraction burned (CA50) for advanced SOImain
Independent input variables studied in this work. is taking place at 0° (for SOImain = -15°BTDC) and 5°ATDC (for
SOImain = -10°BTDC), which is not the optimum combustion phasing
Inputs Low Level High Level
for maximizing the brake power. At retarded SOImain (-5 and 0°BTDC)
EGR 0% 15% the CA50 for NG-HRD is taking place at 7° and 9°ATDC while NG-ULSD
BR 70% 90% is taking place at 17° and 19°ATDC. Extremely retarded combustion
SOImain −55°, −15° ATDC −55°, −5° ATDC
phasing for retarded SOImain is the cause of significant reduction in BTE
DI Fuel ULSD (Cetane 48.7) HRD (Cetane 84.8)
for NG-ULSD. Fig. 9 represent the CA50 at each SOImain timing and
Fig. 10 shows the BTE comparison between NG-HRD and NG-ULSD in
Table 9 RCCI combustion mode at different combustion phasing (CA50). As it is
Full factorial design 24 test matrix. clear in the figure, the optimum combustion phasing to maximizing the
BTE are slightly different in these two fuel combinations. The maximum
# EGR% BR% Injection Strategy °ATDC Fuel Reactivity
BTE is taking place at around 7 and 9°ATDC for NG-HRD and 12 and
1 0 70 −55 −15 NG-ULSD 13°ATDC for NG-ULSD.
2 15 70 −55 −15 NG-ULSD Fig. 11 shows the MPRR comparison between NG-HRD and NG-
3 0 90 −55 −15 NG-ULSD ULSD in RCCI combustion mode. The experimental results showed that
4 15 90 −55 −15 NG-ULSD
no significant difference in MPRR was observed at
5 0 70 −55 −5 NG-ULSD
6 15 70 −55 −5 NG-ULSD SOImain = −15°BTDC. However, at other main injection timings of
7 0 90 −55 −5 NG-ULSD −10, −5 and 0°BTDC, NG-HRD showed about 1 to 2 bar/deg higher
8 15 90 −55 −5 NG-ULSD MPRR. The pressure and Heat Release Rate (HRR) curve of two dif-
9 0 70 −55 −15 NG-HRD ferent SOIs are demonstrated in Figs. 12 and 13. As it is shown in
10 15 70 −55 −15 NG-HRD
11 0 90 −55 −15 NG-HRD
Fig. 12, the HRR curve of NG-HRD and NG-ULSD follow similar trend at
12 15 90 −55 −15 NG-HRD SOImain = -15°ATDC. Although NG-ULSD ignited about 2 CAD later
13 0 70 −55 −5 NG-HRD than NG-HRD (at 1500 RPM), it burned at a similar rate as NG-HRD.
14 15 70 −55 −5 NG-HRD Thus it produced similar NOx emission and MPRR, as demonstrated in
15 0 90 −55 −5 NG-HRD
Figs. 11 and 14. At SOImain = −10°ATDC NG-ULSD showed a lower
16 15 90 −55 −5 NG-HRD
burn rate and overall longer burn duration. This provides lower peak
combustion pressure and consequently lower NOx and MPRR in com-
reactive mixture in the squish region and aids a complete combustion pare to NG-HRD.
process as shown in a previous study [1]. For NOx emission, cetane It was demonstrated by Nieman [14] that increasing the reactivity
number and EGR ratio showed to be the most effective factors with 99% difference between two fuels is beneficial in increasing the combustion
and 92% confidence respectively. BTE showed to be affected by both duration and reducing the MPRR mechanical constraint. But from these
the cetane number and SOImain with 99% confidence. SOImain and Ce- results it can be concluded that increasing the reactivity of the high
tane number are the most important factors in controlling the CA50 reactive fuel (diesel) to increase the reactivity gradient between high
with 100% and 98% confidence, while soot emission are most heavily and low reactive fuels, in RCCI applications is not beneficial; it decrease
impacted by the BR and cetane number providing a 94% and 92% the burn duration and consequently increasing the MPRR.
confidence respectively. NOx- Fig. 14 shows the NOx emission comparison between NG-HRD
and NG-ULSD. The NOx emission of NG-HRD is around 1 to 2 g/kW.hr

952
E. Ansari et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 948–956

Fig. 2. Burn duration and the location of 10% of fuel consumption in CDC mode in EGR sweep test.

Fig. 3. Burn duration and the location of 50% of fuel consumption in CDC mode in EGR sweep test.

10 2.5
COV of IMEP (%)

2
COV of IMEP (%)

5
1.5 NG-HRD
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1 NG-HRD-15%EGR
EGR Ratio NG-ULSD
0.5
ULSD HRD NG-ULSD-15%EGR
0
-15 -10 -5 0
Fig. 4. COV of IMEP comparison between HRD and ULSD in single diesel fuel
mode combustion. SOImain (°BTDC)

Fig. 5. COV of IMEP comparison between NG-HRD and NG-ULSD in RCCI

Table 10 combustion mode.
The Effectiveness and the level of importance of the input variables on outputs
through 24 full factorial DOE analysis. 40.0
Outputs Most effective variable/s Confidence
30.0
HC (g/kW.hr)

MPRR SOImain, BR 100%, 96% NG-HRD

BD0010 CN, EGR 100%, 100% 20.0
CA50 SOImain, CN 100%, 98% NG-HRD-15%EGR
BTE CN, SOImain 99%, 99% 10.0 NG-ULSD
CO CN, EGR 98%, 98%
HC CN, BR 100%, 95% 0.0 NG-ULSD-15%EGR
NOx CN, SOImain 99%, 92% -15 -10 -5 0
Soot BR, CN 94%, 92%
SOImain (°BTDC)

Fig. 6. HC emission comparison between NG-HRD and NG-ULSD in RCCI

higher than NG-ULSD. The difference becomes smaller as SOImain is combustion mode.
retarded.
Soot- Fig. 15 shows the soot emission comparison between NG-HRD
soot suppression is promoted by high cetane number and a lower ki-
and NG-ULSD in RCCI combustion mode. As it was also discussed in a
nematic viscosity [50].
previous study [49], the soot concentration increases as the EGR is
increased for both fuels. In addition, it was also observed that sig-
nificant reduction in soot emission is possible by using high reactive 5. Summary and conclusion
diesel in a RCCI engine. It has been observed in study from Hokkaido
University [50], that the soot formation in CI engines is correlated to Combustion, emission and performance characteristics of a dual fuel
the fuel additive and kinetic viscosity of the fuel. It was find out that the diesel-NG RCCI engine were experimentally studied in this paper using
commercially available HRD and ULSD fuels. The ignition delay of the

953
E. Ansari et al. Applied Energy 239 (2019) 948–956

8.0 12
7.0
10
6.0
CO (g/kW.hr)

5.0

MPRR (bar/deg)
NG-HRD 8
4.0 NG-HRD
NG-HRD-15%EGR 6
3.0
NG-HRD-15%EGR
2.0 NG-ULSD
4 NG-ULSD
1.0 NG-ULSD-15%EGR
NG-ULSD-15%EGR
0.0 2
-15 -10 -5 0
SOImain (°BTDC) 0
-15 -10 -5 0
Fig. 7. CO emission comparison between NG-HRD and NG-ULSD in RCCI SOImain (°BTDC)
combustion mode.
Fig. 11. MPRR comparison between NG-HRD and NG-ULSD in RCCI combus-
35.0 tion mode.

33.0
12000 160
31.0 140
BTE (%)

NG-HRD 10000
29.0 NG-HRD-15%EGR 120

Pressure (kPa)
8000 Start of Ignition

HRR (J/deg)
NG-ULSD 100
27.0
NG-ULSD-15%EGR 6000 80
Start of
25.0 Injection 60
-15 -10 -5 0 4000
40
SOImain (°BTDC)
2000
20
Fig. 8. BTE comparison between NG-HRD and NG-ULSD in RCCI combustion
0 0
mode.
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
CAD
20
18 NG-ULSD NG-HRD
16
14 Fig. 12. Pressure and HRR comparison at SOImain = −15°ATDC.
CA50 (°ATDC)

12
10 NG-HRD
8 NG-HRD-15%EGR 12000 200
6
4 180
NG-ULSD 10000
2 Start of Ignition 160
0 NG-ULSD-15%EGR
-2 8000 140
Pressure (kPa)

HRR (J/deg)
-15 -10 -5 0 120
SOImain (°BTDC) 6000 Start of 100
Injection 80
Fig. 9. CA50 comparison between NG-HRD and NG-ULSD in RCCI combustion 4000 60
mode.
2000 40
20
35 0 0
34 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
34 CAD
BTE (%)

33 NG-HRD
NG-ULSD NG-HRD
33 NG-HRD-15%EGR
32 Fig. 13. Pressure and HRR comparison at SOImain = −10°ATDC.
NG-ULSD
32
NG-ULSD-15%EGR
31 12.0
-5 0 5 10 15 20
10.0
CA50 (°ATDC)
NOx (g/kW.hr)

Fig. 10. BTE comparison between NG-HRD and NG-ULSD in RCCI combustion 8.0
mode at different combustion phasing (CA50). NG-HRD
6.0
NG-HRD-15%EGR
air fuel mixture was distinguished based on the hydraulic delay of the 4.0 NG-ULSD
injector and the ignition delay of the fuel. The hydraulic delay of the DI NG-ULSD-15%EGR
injectors was quantified based on different fuels and back pressure 2.0

through ROI test. 24 full factorial DOE analysis was performed to

0.0
quantify the effect of input variables (including Cetane number, -15 -10 -5 0
SOImain, BR and EGR) on engine performance and emissions. The major SOImain (°BTDC)
findings from this study are:
Fig. 14. Brake NOx comparison between NG-HRD and NG-ULSD in RCCI

• HRD fuel has 0.07 ms longer hydraulic delay in comparison to ULSD combustion mode.

954
E. Ansari et al.
3 computational analysis of diesel-natural gas RCCI combustion in heavy-duty en-
2.5
Soot (mg/m3)
2 characterization of reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) on a light duty
NG-HRD
1.5
NG-HRD-15%EGR
1 cetane improver on a multi-cylinder engine; 2015.
NG-ULSD
0.5 NG-ULSD-15%EGR
0
-15 -10 -5 0
SOImain (°BTDC)
Fig. 15. Soot emission comparison between NG-HRD and NG-ULSD in RCCI
combustion mode.
at 400 bar injection pressure and 2.6, 3.2 and 3.8 MPa back pres-
sure. This hydraulic delay of the injector corresponds to 1 CAD at
1500 RPM.
• Based on the results of the DOE analysis, CN is one of the most
important input variables that affect the RCCI BTE and emissions.
Using HRD fuel in comparison to a regular ULSD in RCCI engines
improves the combustion stability (COV of IMEP) by 0.5% and in-
creases the BTE up to 2%.
•
The experimental results showed SOImain is the best control variable
to adjust CA50. For the 90% energy based BR, studied in these ex-
periments, it was concluded that the combustion phasing could be
advanced 2.5 CAD just by using HRD instead of ULSD.
• It was observed that increasing the reactivity of the high reactive
fuel (diesel) to increase the reactivity gradient between high and
low reactive fuels, in RCCI applications is not beneficial in in-
creasing the burn duration and decreasing the MPRR.
• Around 14 g/kW.hr and 3 g/kW.hr reductions were observed in HC
and CO emissions respectively by using HRD instead of ULSD in the
RCCI engine.
• NG-HRD showed around 1 mg/m3 lower soot emission in compar-
ison to NG-ULSD at the studied operating condition. Soot suppres-
sion is promoted up to 45% by using the higher cetane number fuel.
• These experimental results showed that the CA50 of maximum BTE
of NG-HRD is at 7-9°ATDC and 10-12°ATDC for NG-ULSD.
These experimental results are part of a larger study related to the
optimization of RCCI input parameters and Computational Fluid
Dynamic (CFD) modeling. The next step would be CFD modeling of the
RCCI engine to study the spray penetration and mixing process differ-
ences between ULSD and HRD at different blend ratios while con-
sidering the hydraulic delay of the injectors. The focus of the future CFD
work is to gain a fundamental understanding of the effect of different
fuels and additives on experimental observations.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Paul Dice from Michigan Technological
University for his technical support to calibrate the engine experimental
setup. Also special thanks to APS LABS research center at Michigan
Technological University for giving the opportunity to work on this
project.
References
[1] Ansari E, Poorghasemi K, Irdmousa B, Shahbakhti M, Naber J. Efficiency and
emissions mapping of a light duty diesel - natural gas engine operating in con-
ventional diesel and RCCI modes. SAE international; 2016.
[2] Benajes J, Molina S, Garcia A. Effects of direct injection timing and blending ratio
on RCCI combustion with different low reactivity fuels. Energy Convers Manage
2015;99:193–209.
[3] Curran S, Hanson R, Wagner R. Effect of E85 on RCCI performance and emissions on
a multi-cylinder light-duty diesel engine. SAE international; 2012.
[4] Dahodwala M, Joshi S, Koehler E, Franke M, Tomazic D. Experimental and
955
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 948–956
gines. SAE international; 2015.
[5] Dempsey A, Curran S, Storey J, Eibl M, Pihl J, Prikhodko V, et al. Particulate matter
engine. SAE international; 2014.
[6] Dempsey AB, Curran S, Reitz RD. Characterization of reactivity controlled com-
pression ignition (RCCI) using premixed gasoline and direct-injected gasoline with a
[7] Dempsey AB, Walker NR, Reitz RD. Effect of piston bowl geometry on dual fuel
reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) in a light-duty engine operated
with gasoline/diesel and methanol/diesel. SAE Int J Engines 2013;6(1):78–100.
[8] Hanson R, Curran S, Wagner R, Kokjohn S, Spiltter D, Reitz R. Piston bowl opti-
mization for RCCI combustion in a light-duty multi-cylinder engine. SAE Int J
Engines 2012;5(2):286–99.
[9] Hanson R, Curran S, Wagner R, Reitz R. Effects of biofuel blends on RCCI com-
bustion in a light-duty, multi-cylinder diesel engine. SAE Int J Engines
2013;6(1):488–503.
[10] Hanson R, Ickes A, Wallner T. Use of adaptive injection strategies to increase the full
load limit of RCCI operation. J Eng Gas Turb Power 2016;138(10). 102802 102802.
[11] Hanson R, Ickes A, Wallner T. Comparison of RCCI operation with and without EGR
over the full operating map of a heavy-duty diesel engine. SAE international; 2016.
[12] Jia Z, Denbratt I. Experimental investigation of natural gas-diesel dual-fuel RCCI in
a heavy-duty engine; 2015.
[13] Kokjohn S, Hanson R, Splitter D, Kaddatz J, Reitz R. Fuel reactivity controlled
compression ignition (RCCI) combustion in light- and heavy-duty engines. SAE Int J
Engines 2011;4(1):360–74.
[14] Nieman DE, Dempsey AB, Reitz RD. Heavy-duty RCCI operation using natural gas
and diesel. SAE Int J Engines 2012;5(2):270–85.
[15] Splitter D, Wissink M, DelVescovo D, Reitz R. RCCI engine operation towards 60%
thermal efficiency. SAE international; 2013.
[16] Walker N, Dempsey A, Andrie M, Reitz R. Use of low-pressure direct-injection for
reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) light-duty engine operation. SAE
Int J Engines 2013;6(2):1222–37.
[17] Zoldak P, Sobiesiak A, Bergin M, Wickman, D. Computational study of reactivity
controlled compression ignition (RCCI) combustion in a heavy-duty diesel engine
[18]
using natural gas. SAE international; 2014.
Johnson DR, Heltzel R, Nix AC, Clark N, Darzi M. Regulated gaseous emissions from
in-use high horsepower drilling and hydraulic fracturing engines. J Pollut Eff Cont
2017;5:187. https://doi.org/10.4176/2375-4397.1000187.
[19] Javaheri A, Esfahanian V, Salavati-Zadeh A, Darzi M, Mirsoheil SM. Investigation of
natural gas composition effects on knock phenomenon in SI gas engines using de-
tailed chemistry. Appl Mech Mater 2014;493:239–44. https://doi.org/10.4028/
www.scientific.net/AMM.493.239.
[20] Javheri A, Esfahanian V, Salavati-Zade A, Darzi M. Energetic and exergetic analyses
of a variable compression ratio spark ignition gas engine. Energy Convers Manage
2014;88:739–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.09.009.
[21] Afkhami B, Kakaee AH, Pouyan K. Studying engine cold start characteristics at low
temperatures for CNG and HCNG by investigating low-temperature oxidation.
[22]
Energy Convers Manage 2012;64:122–8.
Rahimi Boldaji M, Sofianopoulos A, Mamalis S, Lawler B. CFD simulations of the
effect of water injection characteristics on TSCI: a new, load-flexible, advanced
combustion concept. In: ASME. Internal combustion engine division fall technical
conference, Volume 1: Large Bore Engines; Fuels; Advanced
Combustion:V001T03A019. 10.1115/ICEF2017-3662.
[23] Poorghasemi K, Saray RK, Ansari E, Irdmousa BK, Shahbakhti M, Naber JD. Effect of
diesel injection strategies on natural gas/diesel RCCI combustion characteristics in a
light duty diesel engine. Appl Energy 2017;199:430–46.
[24] Szwaja S, Ansari E, Rao S, Szwaja M, Grab-Rogalinski K, Naber JD, et al. Influence
of exhaust residuals on combustion phases, exhaust toxic emission and fuel con-
sumption from a natural gas fueled spark-ignition engine. Energy Convers Manage,
2018; 165, p. 440–6 [ISSN 0196-8904].
[25] Rahimi Boldaji M, et al. A CFD investigation of the effects of fuel split fraction on
advanced low temperature combustion: comparing a primary reference fuel blend
and ethanol. Front Mech Eng 2018;4:6.
[26] Yang Z, Rao S, Wang Y, Harsulkar J, Ansari E, Miganakallu N, et al. Investigation of
combustion knock distribution in a boosted methane. Gasoline Blend Fueled SI
Engine, SAE Techn Paper 2018–01-0215 2018,. https://doi.org/10.4271/2018-01-
0215.
[27] Ansari E, Shahbakhti M, Naber J. Optimization of performance and operational cost
for a dual mode diesel-natural gas RCCI and diesel combustion engine. Appl Energy
2018;231:549–61.
[28] Sofianopoulos A, Rahimi M, Lawler B, Mamalis S. Investigation of thermal strati-
fication in premixed homogeneous charge compression ignition engines: a Large
Eddy simulation study. Int J Engine Res 2018;1468087418795525.
[29] Raut A, Irdmousa BK, Shahbakhti M. Dynamic modeling and model predictive
control of an RCCI engine. Control Eng Pract 2018;81:129–44.
[30] Rahimi Boldaji M, Sofianopoulos A, Mamalis S, Lawler B. Effects of mass, pressure,
and timing of injection on the efficiency and emissions characteristics of TSCI
combustion with direct water injection. No. 2018-01-0178. SAE technical paper;
2018.
[31] Rahimi Boldaji M, Sofianopoulos A, Mamalis S, Lawler B. Computational fluid dy-
namics investigations of the effect of water injection timing on thermal stratifica-
tion and heat release in thermally stratified compression ignition combustion. Int J
Engine Res 2018;1468087418767451.
[32] Shahsavan M, Hunter Mack J. Numerical study of a boosted HCCI engine fueled
with n-butanol and isobutanol. Energy Convers Manage 2018;157:28–40.
E. Ansari et al.
[33] Shahsavan M, Morovatiyan M, Mack JH. The influence of mixedness on ignition for
hydrogen direct injection in a constant volume combustion chamber. In: Spring
technical meeting, ESSCI, State College, PA, 2018.
[34] Derek R. Johnson, Robert Heltzel, Andrew C. Nix, Nigel Clark, Mahdi Darzi.
Greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency of in-use high horsepower diesel, dual
fuel, and natural gas engines for unconventional well development. Appl Energy,
vol. 206, ISSN 0306-2619 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.234.
[35] Afkhami Behdad, Wang Yanyu, Miers Scott A, Naber Jeffrey D. Experimental study
of flame stretch under engine-like conditions. In: ASME 2017 internal combustion
engine division fall technical conference. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 2017, pp. V001T03A015-V001T03A015.
[36] Kakaee A-H, Rahnama P, Paykani A. Influence of fuel composition on combustion
and emissions characteristics of natural gas/diesel RCCI engine. J Nat Gas Sci Eng
2015;25:58–65.
[37] Qian Y, Wang X, Zhu L, Lu XE. Experimental studies on combustion and emissions
of RCCI (reactivity controlled compression ignition) with gasoline/n-heptane and
ethanol/n-heptane as fuels. Energy 2015;88:584–94.
[38] Dempsey AB, Walker NR, Reitz RD. Effect of cetane improvers on gasoline, ethanol,
and methanol reactivity and the implications for. RCCI Combust 2013.
[39] Patil R, K., Thipse SS, Warke A. Effect of oxygenate and cetane improver on per-
formance and emissions of diesel engine fuelled with diethyl ether-diesel blends.
SAE international; 2015.
[40] Wang H, DelVescovo D, Yao M, Reitz R. Numerical study of RCCI and HCCI com-
bustion processes using gasoline, diesel, iso-butanol and DTBP cetane improver.
SAE Int J Engines 2015;8(2):831–45. https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-0850.
[41] Belgiorno G, Dimitrakopoulos N, Di Blasio G, Beatrice C, Tuner M. Parametric
analysis of the effect of pilot quantity, combustion phasing and EGR on efficiencies
of a gasoline PPC light-duty engine. SAE Tech Paper 2017–24-0084 2017. https://
doi.org/10.4271/2017-24-0084.
[42] Belgiorno Giacomo, Dimitrakopoulos Nikolaos, Di Blasio Gabriele, Beatrice Carlo,
Tunestål Per, Tunér Martin. Effect of the engine calibration parameters on gasoline
partially premixed combustion performance and emissions compared to
956
Applied Energy 239 (2019) 948–956
conventional diesel combustion in a light-duty Euro 6 engine. Appl Energy
2018;228: p. 2221–34 [ISSN 0306-2619].
[43] Di Blasio G, Belgiorno G, Beatrice C. Parametric analysis of compression ratio
variation effects on thermodynamic, gaseous pollutant and particle emissions of a
dual-fuel CH4-diesel light duty engine. SAE Tech Paper 2017–01-0764 2017.
https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0764.
[44] Di Blasio G, Belgiorno G, Beatrice C. Effects on performances, emissions and particle
size distributions of a dual fuel (methane-diesel) light-duty engine varying the
compression ratio. Appl Energy 2017;204: 726–40 [ISSN 0306-2619].
[45] Belgiorno Giacomo, Di Blasio Gabriele, Beatrice Carlo. Parametric study and opti-
mization of the main engine calibration parameters and compression ratio of a
methane-diesel dual fuel engine. Fuel 2018;222: 821–40 [ISSN 0016-2361].
[46] Bates SC. Flame imaging studies of cycle-by-cycle combustion variation in a si four-
stroke engine. SAE International; 1989.
[47] Fuels, V.R. [April-2017]. Available from: < https://vpracingfuels.com/diesel/ > .
[48] Kokjohn SL, Hanson R, Splitter D, Reitz R. Experiments and modeling of dual-fuel
HCCI and PCCI combustion using in-cylinder fuel blending. SAE Int J Engines
2009;2(2):24–39.
[49] Zhou B, Horikoshi M, Kikusato A, Kusaka A, Daisho J, Sato K, Fujimoto H. Detailed
diesel combustion and soot formation analysis with improved wall model using
large eddy simulation. SAE Int J Engines 2016;9(1):405–16.
[50] Miyamoto N, Ogawa H, Hou Z, Shibuya M. The influence of fuel properties on
diesel-soot suppression with soluble fuel additives. SAE Tech Paper 910737 1991.
https://doi.org/10.4271/910737.
[51] DelVescovo D, Wang H, Wissink M, Reitz R. Isobutanol as both low reactivity and
high reactivity fuels with addition of di-tert butyl peroxide (DTBP) in RCCI com-
bustion. SAE Int J Fuels Lubr 2015;8(2):329–43. https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-
0839.
[52] Wang H, Tong L, Zheng Z, Yao M. Experimental study on high-load extension of
gasoline/PODE dual-fuel RCCI operation using late intake valve closing. SAE Int J
Engines 2017;10(4). https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0754.