Fuel 134 (2014) 140–150

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Experimental analysis of a diesel engine operating in Diesel–Ethanol

Dual-Fuel mode
Roberto Freitas Britto Jr. a,b,⇑, Cristiane Aparecida Martins a
a
Departamento de Propulsão, Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, 12228-210 São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil
b
Vale Soluções em Energia, São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil

h i g h l i g h t s

 We used a single cylinder engine, in the Dual-Fuel mode, to obtain experimental data.
 It was used a direct injection system for the diesel fuel.
 It was used a port ethanol injection 100% electronically controlled.
 Compression ratios were adjusted at 3 different levels: 14:1, 16:1 and 17:1.
 The highest substitution rates occurred at CR of 16:1, reaching more than 50%.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The use of engines is necessary to keep the world moving. Such engines are fed mainly by fossil fuels,
Received 26 March 2014 among these, the diesel. The operation and the behavior of engines in different thermodynamic cycles,
Received in revised form 9 May 2014 with common fossil fuels, it is still challenging but, in general, it has well known and documented data.
Accepted 9 May 2014
On the other hand, for alternative fuels, there is still demand of experimental data, particularly consider-
Available online 24 May 2014
ing that it is desirable, most of the times, the use of a system with dual mode (reversible). Such systems
are called Dual-Fuel, it brings a greater degree of freedom, but imply in technological challenges. In this
Keywords:
paper we used an engine operating with single cylinder direct injection diesel and port ethanol injection
Alternative fuel
Biofuel
system in Dual-Fuel mode with a 100% electronically controlled calibration. The methodology applied
Diesel was, once the engine calibration was given to achieve the best specific fuel consumption or the MBT
Ethanol (Maximum Brake Torque) in each load condition, to gradually substitute the diesel oil by ethanol in
Dual-Fuel compliance with the requirements established. Comparisons were made among working conditions con-
sidering the rate of diesel substitution and the energy indicated efficiency. Initially, the flow structure in
the combustion chamber was tested in both ‘quiescent’ and high ‘‘swirl’’ modes. Compression ratios were
adjusted at 3 different levels: 14:1, 16:1 and 17:1. It was tested two injectors, the first one of 35 g/s and
another of 45 g/s. Regarding pressure diesel injection, 4 levels were investigated namely 800, 1000, 1200
and 1400 bar.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The development of the current society has been, until now, lar-
gely associated to the use of fossil fuels. It can be confirmed with
data from 2010 [7] that indicate that 43% of CO2 emissions from
fuel combustion were produced from coal, 36% from oil and 20%
from gas. One strategic way to reduce the damage of this depen-
⇑ Corresponding author at: Departamento de Propulsão, Instituto Tecnológico de
Aeronáutica, 12228-210 São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil. Tel.: +55 1239475826.
E-mail addresses: robertobritto@gmail.com (R.F. Britto Jr.), cmartins@ita.br
(C.A. Martins).
dence is through the use of alternative fuels, among these, the eth-
anol. Ethanol is an attractive alternative fuel because it is a
biological resource base and it is oxygenated, thereby providing
the potential to reduce particulate emissions in compression igni-
tion engines. It is accepted that the addition of ethanol to diesel oil
have the beneficial effect of reducing emissions of particulates.
Boretti [3] notes that among the biggest advantages of using the
Dual-Fuel mode with Diesel–Ethanol are the CO2 emissions reduc-
tion, following the fuel life cycle analysis; a possible reduction of
both smoke and particulate matter emissions; a better sustainabil-
ity of the renewable fuel and finally, better energy security. In
fact, the replacement of the fossil fuels consumption by ethanol

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.05.010
0016-2361/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R.F. Britto Jr., C.A. Martins / Fuel 134 (2014) 140–150 141

Nomenclature

AFR air fuel ratio RON Research Octane Number

AI50 crank angle of 50% mass fraction burned COV-DE COV of IMEP in Diesel–Ethanol mode
AI50-D crank angle of 50% mass fraction burned with diesel COV-D COV of IMEP with diesel only (baseline)
only (baseline) Ind.Eff.-DE indicated Efficiency in Diesel–Ethanol mode
BNDES Banco National de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social Ind.Eff.-D indicated efficiency with diesel only (baseline)
CI compression ignition Lambda-DE air excess coefficient in Diesel–Ethanol mode
CNG Compressed Natural Gas Lambda-D air excess coefficient with diesel only (baseline)
CR compression ratio LHV Lower Heating Value
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers m mass
MBT Maximum Brake Torque Nd:YAG Neodymium-doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet
IMEP indicated mean effective pressure PFI Port Fuel Injection
°CA Crank Angle Degree Ottolization diesel to Otto cycle conversion
COVIMEP IMEP coefficient of variation SOI Start Of Injection
DFMI Dual-Fuel Mixed Ignition VSE Vale Soluções em Energia
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation WTW Well-to-Wheel
RMax Maximum Rate of Rise of Combustion Pressure

could significantly reduce CO2 emissions based on WTW analysis 2. Global context of the Diesel–Ethanol in the Dual-Fuel mode
(Well-to-Wheels, 2007), especially if the biofuel is produced from
sugar cane as it is the case in Brazil, or the diesel used nowadays Different ‘Dual Fuel’ systems, which include diesel, have been
in the ethanol production process chain (production inputs trans- built and used in varied applications. The Dual-Fuel engine is based
portation, preparation for sugar cane planting and transportation, on a traditional Diesel engine, with the addition of a specific hard-
etc.) was replaced by biofuel. ware applied to Dual-Fuel.
An important aspect of any substitution regards to safety There are several systems report to Diesel–CNG, among them,
aspects. Waterland et al. [17] published the safety aspects and per- studies related by Wannatong et al. [16], Maji et al. [10], Yoshimoto
formance analysis of ethanol blends in engines which run origi- [20] and Wierzbicki [19]. Pawlak [13], for example, tested one
nally with diesel only, but without setting the start point of 2.6-l, four cylinder compression ignition engine, with 17.5:1 of
injection to optimize the overall efficiency of the engine to the compression ratio (CR), adapted to a Dual-Fuel with direct injec-
new fuel. Another aspect to consider is the chemical properties tion of diesel oil and port injection of natural gas. He mentioned
of the ethanol when compared to diesel. Authors as Satgé de Caro about up to 80% of diesel substitution in energy basis at 75% of full
et al. [14] and Hansen et al. [6] discuss the properties and specifi- load. At higher loads, around of 11 MPa of maximum cylinder pres-
cations of ethanol blended with diesel fuel, such as stability, vis- sure, the substitution level was between 45% and 50%. To achieve
cosity, lubricity, safety and materials compatibility. They these results and maximum engine overall efficiency, the injection
considered the effect of the fuel on the engine performance, dura- timing was optimized for each torque and engine speed. There are
bility and emissions. Finally, they suggested the formulation of also companies which already have solutions that include products
additives to correct certain key properties and maintain blend sta- with Diesel–CNG, for example, Clean Air Power [5] and Westport
bility, since a critical factor is to ensure compatibility between the [18], who developed fuel injection systems and their components.
fuel and the engine. To date, no engine manufacturer indicated that There are also Dual-Fuel systems running with Diesel–Gasoline [9].
they will extend the warranty coverage of their equipment if they Leermakers et al. [9] performed an investigation with a test cylin-
are operating with E-diesel (Diesel–Ethanol blend). They believe der (130 mm of bore, 158 mm of stroke and 15:1 of compression
that there are still many unanswered questions, as well as the ratio), geometrically similar to that one used in the present work,
potential of passive exposure due to an increased flammable range (see Table 1), running in the Dual-Fuel mode. This test cylinder
of E-diesel, as mentioned by Nylund et al. [12]. Therefore, the crit- was equipped with a port gasoline injection (RON 95) comple-
ical factors of the potential commercial use of these mixtures menting the stand-alone diesel injection system, EGR (Exhaust
include properties such as viscosity, stability and lubricity, safety Gas Recirculation) circuit, and air compressor. Timing and rate of
and material compatibility plus their performance characteristics heat release can be directly controlled by varying the balance
and emissions. These matters, although very important, will not
be covered in the present work for the Dual-Fuel concept.
The motivation for this work is related to the growing interest
in biofuels for transportation and industrial applications. Taking Table 1
into account the environmental aspects, the ethanol in Dual Fuel Test engine technical characteristics.
system may be a feasible alternative for the usage of biofuel in Description Value Unit
some applications, since changes in Diesel base engines internal Engine specification
components is probably not mandatory. However, at least it is Displacement 2.06 l
required the development of a PFI (Port Fuel Injection) system to Stroke 160 mm
operate the engine in this condition. The PFI system has already Bore 128 mm
Number of cylinders 1
been demonstrated to be technically feasible for a 6 cylinder
Compression ratio 13:1 to 19:1
engine of 11.7 l displacement which was originally Diesel and then Number of inlet valves per cylinder 2
‘Ottolized’ to operate at 100% hydrated ethanol according to Britto Number of exhaust valves per cylinder 2
et al. [4]. In the present work it was tested different Diesel–Ethanol Diesel injection type Direct
proportions at different engine operating conditions and the base Ethanol injection type PFI
Piston geometry ‘‘Mexican Hat’’
for the comparison is the results obtained using pure diesel.
142 R.F. Britto Jr., C.A. Martins / Fuel 134 (2014) 140–150

between direct injected diesel and port fuel injected gasoline, cycle by defining the best SOI (Start of Injection) of diesel for each one
by cycle. of those conditions.
One advantage of ethanol usage instead of gasoline is its higher
octane number which leads to higher knock resistance and
3. Description of the experiment
possibly, higher diesel substitution level at high loads. The expres-
sion Dual-Fuel Diesel–Ethanol can involve several techniques
The experiments performed in this study used both the dyna-
(Abu-Quadais et al. [1]. One of them is named alcohol fumigation
mometers and other engines laboratories of the company VSE
(addition of alcohol to the intake air charge); a second one is alco-
(Vale Solutions in Energy). VSE was born from the partnership of
hol–diesel fuel blend – that is the mixture of the fuels in one
the mining company Vale with BNDES (National Bank for Economic
unique fuel tank and the third is the dual injection. In the last
and Social Development). VSE is a company focused on research
one, separate injection systems are used for each fuel. In the pres-
and development in alternative energy area.
ent work, the last configuration was used.
For the present work, it was used a single cylinder engine
The literature has scarce studies involving Dual-Fuel Diesel
whose characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Ethanol using dual injection system. Some authors present only con-
This research engine was assembled in the Dual-Fuel configura-
cepts, such as Pawlak [13]. Pawlak [13] presented the concept of
tion. Dual-Fuel mode was done with the direct injection of diesel
Dual-Fuel Mixed Ignition (DFMI) engine to optimize efficiency. This
and the indirect injection of ethanol (injection in the intake port).
concept includes the application of ethanol and diesel oil and two
Therefore, a homogeneous air and ethanol premixture is formed in
separate direct injection systems for these fuels as well as a spark
the intake port, driven into the cylinder, where it is compressed
ignition system which would enable the ignition of lean ethanol–
and the combustion is initiated from a pilot injection of diesel
air mixture in lower engine loads. For higher and full load of the
fuel in the combustion chamber, as in a conventional Diesel engine.
engine, compression ignition mode would be applied. In this mode
However, the flame propagation continues throughout the
the engine would be fuelled as a dual fuel engine with ethanol and
combustion chamber burning the homogeneous and lean air and
diesel oil which would ignite the fuel–air mixture in the cylinder.
ethanol premixture, as in the Otto cycle engines.
No computational simulation or experimental data were presented
The instrumentation used in this investigation was similar to
and, in case of product development, the cylinder head packaging
Leermakers’s et al. [9]. A pressure transducer was installed in the
might be an issue to place injectors, spark plug and valves.
cylinder head, the combustion data were analyzed by the Indimo-
Motta [11] also made a theoretical study in which the Diesel–
dul and MicroIfem modules. The combustion gases were analyzed
Ethanol Dual-Fuel was considered the system with the most
by Horiba FTIR MEXA 6000FT. These and other measurements
feasible technological alternative to replace the current diesel
allowed the acquisition of the parameters presented in Table 2.
consumption used in Brazil the sugarcane processing; diesel is
In this work, the investigated engine ran with three different
the main fuel used by farm machinery and trucks involved in the
compression ratios: 14:1, 16:1 and 17:1. To make the adjustment
ethanol production chain. The idea is to reduce the use of diesel
of these values, there has been a change in the spacing between
through its replacement by ethanol. In his evaluation, the Dual-
the cylinder head and cylinder block. Thus, the combustion cham-
Fuel system running with diesel and ethanol was compared to
ber squish area was modified for each of these three levels of com-
alternative technologies as ‘Ottolization’, use of additivated etha-
pression ratio which, probably, affected the gases turbulence;
nol to work in Diesel cycle and diesel from sugarcane. In addition,
therefore it should be taken into account in the experimental data
the following aspects have been considered for each of these
analysis.
technologies: the applicability to the existing fleet, the engine cost
Some research has also happened regarding the size of diesel
increasing, the operational cost, the engine performance, the emis-
injector. It was tested an injector with flow rate of 35 g/s at
sions and the sustainability. The outcome was that the Dual Fuel
1000 bar and other with flow rate of 45 g/s at 1000 bar, both from
concept running with diesel and ethanol was the best option,
automotive application. Regarding diesel injection pressure, 4
mainly due to the economic aspects.
levels were investigated: 800, 1000, 1200 and 1400 bar. Moreover,
As previously mentioned, experiments with Dual-Fuel involving
the flow structure in the combustion chamber was tested in quies-
diesel and ethanol with different injection systems are rare. More
cent mode and high ‘‘swirl’’. Table 3 shows the parameters that
common, but also scarce, are those involving diesel and ethanol
were investigated, as well as their levels.
blends (Bilgin et al. [2]).
The tested engine loads were defined to start at 5 bar of IMEP
Kowalewicz and Paja˛czek [8] of the Politechnika Radomska,
increased with incremental of 2 bar, up to the maximum load
studied the possibility to apply ethyl alcohol to CI (compression
allowed by injectors flow, at 100% diesel mode, without any exces-
ignition) engines. Their experiments were carried out in tests with
sive efficiency loss. Which means that, above 11 bar of IMEP, the
one cylinder direct injection CI engine with modified intake port to
diesel injection pulse width, and thus the burn duration, was so
place one ethanol injector, different from here, where two injectors
wide that the efficiency was below typical values for this type of
for ethanol were used, one in each intake port, in the PFI concept.
engine since the injectors have not enough flow for that engine
Another study was conducted for Volpato Filho et al. [15]. They
displacement.
tested their diesel engine using mechanical control for engine cal-
The values of LHV (Lower Heating Value) of the utilized fuels
ibration. Such engine was operated with a Diesel–Ethanol system
were obtained experimentally using a calorimeter, model C2000
at the dynamometer. They used further three levels of offset for
IKA. The measurement results were 24,294 kJ/kg and 23,276 kJ/kg
the whole diesel injection timing curve besides the original curve,
for the two batches of hydrated ethanol and 42,577 kJ/kg for diesel
which might not be the proper injection timing for optimized fuel
fuel.
consumption and diesel substitution rate. In addition, they did not
mention about combustion chamber instrumentation in their
study what, normally, helps to have objective conclusions about 4. Methodology
knocking, misfire and efficiency. Different from Volpato Filho
et al. [15] in the present work, the engine calibration was totally The first step of the experiment consisted of the engine and test
(100%) electronically controlled. Moreover, during the experi- bench preparation regarding temperature stabilization. The engine
ments, the engine was calibrated in all engine conditions according was considered stabilized when the temperature of the water and
to the combinations of all factors and levels presented in Table 3, the oil cooling system reached approximately 85 °C. Then, the
 R.F. Britto Jr., C.A. Martins / Fuel 134 (2014) 140–150 143

Table 2 Table 4
Functional engine parameters acquired in the laboratory. Engine operating condition.

Temperatures Pressures Others Engine parameters Range Unit

Engine functional acquired parameters Minimum Maximum
Diesel Intake air Break torque
Intake air temperature 21.5 27.0 °C
Ethanol Barometric Speed
Intake air relative humidity 0.2 4.0 %
Intake air Combustion chamber Diesel flow
Barometric pressure 94.8 95.2 kPa
Wet bulb IMEP Ethanol flow
Oil temperature 85 90 °C
Exhaust gases BMEP Lambda
Cooling water temperature 84 91 °C
Inlet cooling water Intake air flow
Outlet cooling water Diesel injection timing
Lubricant oil Crank angle of maximum
combustion pressure
Power Table 5
Specific fuel consumption Maximum diesel injection pulse width (‘‘window’’) applied in the experiment.
AI10, AI50, AI90
Combustion pressure rate Maximum injection window
of rise Injector flow (@1000 bar) Compression ratio
Indicated efficiency
Diesel substitution level 14:1 16:1 17:1
Specific emissions 35 g/s from 19° BTDC 20° BTDC 20° BTDC
IMEP Coefficient of variation to 15° ATDC 20° ATDC 20° ATDC
45 g/s from 19° BTDC 19° BTDC 19° BTDC
to 14° ATDC 14° ATDC 14° ATDC
operating conditions for the tests were maintained in accordance
with Table 4.
After the settling time, which was approximately 2 min in each The range of the diesel injection pulses widths are specified in
step, the measurements were started firstly in operational condi- Table 5.
tion of 100% diesel, which is the baseline data for comparison, then The test procedure consisted of a given engine calibration
in Dual-Fuel mode. adjustment to achieve the best specific fuel consumption or
The boundary conditions of the engine operation are: the MBT (Maximum Brake Torque) in each load condition. Then,
the diesel oil was gradually being replaced by ethanol in compli-
 The maximum load was limited by maximum injection pulse ance with the requirements established. At each increment of
width of diesel. The tests were started with IMEP (Indicated ethanol injection the diesel SOI was adjusted aiming MBT or the
Mean Effective Pressure) equal 5 bar up to the maximum possi- knocking limit, keeping the constant load. In other words, the pri-
ble, with steps of 2 bar. mary objective of the engine calibration was to maximize both the
 The speed was maintained at 1800 rpm. fraction of diesel substitution by ethanol and the efficiency. One of
 The test bench intake pressure and the exhaust backpressure the methods for the MBT definition is to use the AI50 parameter as
were adjusted to reproduce the pumping work of a typical die- reference, which is the crankshaft angle position where the
sel engine at the same loads. combustion of 50% of the air–fuel mixture mass occurred in the
 Intake air temperature was controlled between 23 °C and 27 °C. chamber. However, it is not common to apply this method in Diesel
 Maximum COVIMEP (coefficient of variation of IMEP) of 3.5%. cycle engines, so during the tests, periodic checks were made at
 The maximum allowed indicated efficiency decrease in the different load conditions and levels of diesel substitution, which
Diesel–Ethanol operation mode was 4% relative to diesel only proved that the ideal SOI timing was achieved when the AI50
operation mode. was, approximately, between 8 and 10 °CA.
 RMax (rate of rise in combustion pressure) up to 9 bar/°CA
(orientation from FEV company, manufacturer of the Single 5. Results and discussion
Cylinder Engine).
Initially the test was performed just changing the flow struc-
The indicated efficiency is the energy transferred from the gases ture. It could be observed that the structure of quiescent flow
inside the combustion chamber to the piston, divided by the total exceeded the RMax threshold (maximum combustion pressure
energy supplied by fuel in each cycle. The energy transferred from rate of rise) of 9 bar/°CA when the SOI was set to achieve the
the gases inside the combustion chamber to the piston can be cal- MBT. Thus, the SOI had to be retarded regarding MBT reducing, sig-
culated by the integration of p–V (pressure versus cylinder volume) nificantly, the efficiency at this condition. Although the engine
curve along a cycle. supplier also specifies a limit of combustion peak pressure this
Experimental tests included the adjustment and calibration of was not a concern since the tests running conditions was always
the injection parameters for each engine operating condition. away from this limit.
These parameters were the diesel and ethanol injection pulse Therefore, ‘‘High Swirl’’ configuration was chosen and utilized
time, which directly affect the amount of fuel injected into each in all tests. It is a flow structure in the combustion chamber which
engine cycle, and the starting point of the diesel injection (SOI). is able to provide gradual and controllable combustion. This result

Table 3
Investigated engine factors.

Factors Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Investigated factors of the engine
Compression ratio 14:1 16:1 17:1 –
Diesel injector flow 35 g/s 45 g/s – –
Diesel injection pressure 800 bar 1000 bar 1200 bar 1400 bar
Combustion chamber turbulence type Quiescent High swirl – –
144 R.F. Britto Jr., C.A. Martins / Fuel 134 (2014) 140–150

was expected, since swirl provides more intense fuel–air mixing,

and also it is considered the flow structure which is typically used
in engines with the same displacement of the one used in the pres-
ent study.
The following sections will show the influence on diesel
substitution by ethanol and efficiency due to each one of the
studied factors, according to Table 3, besides engine load.
Firstly, it is presented one comparison between the two
injectors.

5.1. Comparison between the injectors

Considering the diesel and ethanol usage, in the Dual-Fuel

mode, the limits of the diesel energetic substitution and indicated
efficiency were tested comparing two injectors of Common Rail
diesel engines. The lower flow injector, manufactured by Bosch
and used in a BMW 3.0 l engine, had a flow of 35 g/s at 1000 bar
injection pressure; the other, an injector with the tip DSLA Bosch
143 P 970, is used in a MWM engine and had 45 g/s at 1000 bar
of injection pressure. In Fig. 1, it is presented a spray bench image
of the lower flow injector.
The characterization of these injectors was performed using a
spray test bench which includes a EFS visualization camera, a
pulsed laser system, the Nd:YAG Quantel Brilliant Twins B with
a camera CCD LaVision Imager pro X2M and one IFR flow meter.
The injectors main characteristics are shown in Table 6.
As mentioned before, during the tests the speed was kept con-
stant and equal to 1800 rpm and the engine load was varied up to Fig. 1. Spray bench image of the lower flow diesel injector.
11 bar IMEP. Also, the absolute intake manifold pressure was
maintained at approximately 1 bar, which is a possible intake pres-
Table 6
sure in typical diesel engines at those levels of loads. This means Diesel injectors – main characteristics.
that the intake air flow rate was approximately constant regardless
Injectors characteristics Injector Unit
the engine load, so the air excess coefficient, sometimes called
lambda factor, changes from 3.5 (at IMPEP = 5) to 1.8 (at Low flow High flow
IMEP = 11), as can be seen in Fig. 4. In other words, by increasing Application engine BMW MWM –
the load, the mixture became ’’richer’’ in fuel. Fuel flow @ 1000 bar 35 45 g/s
Number of plumes 5 8 –
The air excess coefficient, the lambda factor, is the relation
Holes diameter 0.167 0.167 mm
between the actual air–fuel ratio and stoichiometric air–fuel ratio, Plume cone angle 17 12 °
as shown in Eq. (1): Spray cone angle 150 143 °

AFRactual ðmair =mfuel Þactual

k¼ ¼ ð1Þ
AFRstoich ðmair =mfuel Þstoich
To air excess coefficient equal to 1 implicates in a stoichiometric
relation between air and fuel mixture for the complete combustion
without excess of any reagents. If the air excess coefficient is
higher than 1, it indicates that this mixture has excess of air. In
contrast, when the air excess coefficient is lower than 1, the
mixture has too much fuel to be burned in such amount of air.
Fig. 2 shows the air excess coefficient for the baseline condition
(100% diesel) compared with the Dual-Fuel mode (Diesel–Ethanol).
These results confirm that the air excess coefficients are in
agreement with the expected values, independently of the diesel
injection pressure.
Each of the injectors was tested in a different CR, namely 14:1,
16:1 and 17:1. Also, for each CR value, the injection pressure and
the engine load were varied, represented by the IMEP. However,
only the diesel injection pressures with the best results regarding
diesel substitution and indicated efficiency were plotted in the
following graphics. In Figs. 3 and 6 are the ones obtained with
the injector of 35 g/s; Figs. 4 and 5 show the best results with
the injector of 45 g/s. It is important to emphasize that the baseline
for comparison is the condition of 100% diesel and the maximum
difference allowed between the efficiencies with 100% diesel and
Diesel–Ethanol was 4% once the higher is the ethanol percentage
in the combustion the lower is the engine indicated efficiency.
Exception occurs only for points of IMEP equal to 5 bar, where this
limit achieved 7%. Thus, in Fig. 6 the point of IMEP equal to 7 and
CR of 16:1 showed an efficiency of approximately 50% with a
maximum at substitution of 40%, according to Fig. 3. This means
that, at this test point, the efficiency obtained when the fuel uti-
lized was only diesel (100%) is less or equal to 54%.
It can be observed that the diesel energetic substitution rate
never exceeds 66% and this value was obtained with the high flow
injector in the condition of IMEP equal to 5. Thus, if the energetic
substitution was considered the highest priority it would have to
be tolerated efficiency penalties of up to 7%. Note that the maxi-
mum substitution in loads above 5 bar of IMEP was 51% with the
higher flow injectors working at 800 bar injection pressure and
16:1 of CR; but this value can be changed via a new engine calibra-
tion if it is allowed or even desired other efficiency variation values
(other than 4%) in comparison to the condition 100% diesel.
With the lower flow injector and CR of 14:1, measurements
were not acquired because the engine achieved diesel injection
window values (injection pulse width) typically very high and very
low efficiency.
In Figs. 3 and 4 are shown the best results for the diesel ener-
getic substitution by ethanol, in relation to the engine load, IMEP,
and injection pressure where this condition occurred. For example,
in Fig. 6, with IMEP equal to 9 bar and CR of 17:1, the highest value
 R.F. Britto Jr., C.A. Martins / Fuel 134 (2014) 140–150 145

Fig. 2. Lambda comparative between 100% diesel and Dual Fuel mode at 17:1 of compression ratio.

Fig. 3. Maximum energetic substitution rate – Injector of 35 g/s.

of substitution occurred at injection pressure of 1000 bar. This
means that for the injection pressures of 800, 1200 and 1400 bar,
the substitution values obtained for this condition were lower; it
might also occur that one of those set of assumptions was not
met. Already with IMEP of 7 bar and the same value of RC 17:1
the value of injection pressure enabling the highest substitution
was in 800 bar.
Also note that the higher the load or IMEP, the lower the possi-
bility of diesel substitution, regardless the used injector. This
behavior can be explained by the hypothesis of limitation due to
knocking, which to be avoided the SOI shall be retarded, conse-
quently the premise of acceptable maximum efficiency loss, com-
pared to 100% diesel condition, may be exceeded. In this study
the maximum limit allowed for efficiency loss was 4%. Regarding
knock intensity measurement, it was defined as a reference, the
amplitude of the high frequency pressure fluctuations that occurs
with knocking combustion. It means that the cylinder pressure sig-
nal (from the high frequency response pressure transducer) is fil-
tered with a band-pass filter so that only the component of the
pressure signal, that corresponds to the fluctuations occurring after
knock, remains. In the tests, the limit to avoid knocking was con-
sidered maximum of 2 bar of pressure fluctuations amplitude.
It can be observed, in general, that the results were better for
the higher flow injector. It can be explained due to the fact that
the other injector requires larger injection times, which decreased,
significantly, the burning rate in most conditions with 100% diesel.
It also caused increased knocking tendency in Dual-Fuel, limiting
the diesel substitution rate with the injector of 35 g/s (lower flow).
However, it can be observed in a comparison between Figs. 5
and 6, that the indicated efficiency using the Diesel–Ethanol com-
bination is higher for the lower flow injector. The hypothesis
behind this phenomenon is that the positive effect from the best
combination of combustion chamber geometry, swirl intensity,
number of injector holes (injection plumes) and diesel spray geom-
etry of the lower flow injector, and consequently, better combus-
tion efficiency, is more significant than the negative effect from
the increased injection pulse width. This hypothesis is also sup-
ported by the fact that most of the points, acquired using only die-
sel fuel also achieved an improved efficiency with the injector of
35 g/s. Additionally, to the Diesel–Ethanol condition, the lower
146 R.F. Britto Jr., C.A. Martins / Fuel 134 (2014) 140–150

Fig. 4. Maximum energetic substitution rate – Injector of 45 g/s.

Fig. 5. Indicated efficiency for maximum substitution rate– Injector of 45 g/s.

energetic substitution with the lower flow injector probably sup-
ported a better efficiency in this condition.
Note that in Fig. 6, the indicated maximum efficiency was 53.6%,
obtained with the lower flow injector at 1400 bar of injection pres-
sure and load of 9 bar IMEP.
It is concluded, therefore, that if the priority is a higher diesel
substitution rate, the best injector is the one with higher flow,
45 g/s. On the other hand, if the main concern is the efficiency,
the lower flow injector shall be used to achieve up to 47% of diesel
substitution rate.
5.2. Comparison of compression ratios
The comparative results among the compression ratios show
that the CR of 16:1, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, allows in average
a higher substitution limit, reaching values greater than 50% for
7 bar of IMEP. This occurrence can be explained by the lower
tendency to ’’knock phenomenon’’ with CR of 16:1 in relation to
CR of 17:1. Also due to knocking limit, it is observed that the high
loads allow lower diesel substitution rates, regardless the utilized
injector.
For high loads, IMEP from 9 bar, it was observed that the high
flow injector yielded quite similar results between CR 16:1 and
CR 17:1. The limit of diesel substitution was practically the same,
as shown in Fig. 4, but the efficiencies were better for CR 17:1
(Fig. 5). At 9 bar of IMEP and 16:1 of CR, for example, the efficiency
was about 47% whereas with 17:1 of CR, it reaches 49%, a signifi-
cant difference when dealing with engines. Although at low loads,
there has been a certain possibility of higher substitution rate with
CR of 16:1, when comparing the efficiency there is no doubt that
the condition of 17:1 of CR is the best one since it allows values
almost 10% higher (Fig. 5). Thus the results indicate that, the best
compression ratio, independent on the engine load, is CR of 17:1
for the high flow injector.
For the condition which considers the lower flow injector usage,
the CR of 16:1 allows the higher substitution limit regardless the
load; however, the highest efficiency was obtained on the condi-
tion of CR 17:1.
If one comparison between both conditions of work and their
substitution rate and efficiency were considered, the results
showed that the first condition, CR 16:1, allowed a bigger substitu-
tion rate, but it is less efficient than CR 17:1. This indicates that the
 R.F. Britto Jr., C.A. Martins / Fuel 134 (2014) 140–150
Fig. 6. Indicated efficiency for maximum substitution rate – injector of 35 g/s.
second condition has priority over the first. In practical terms one
difference of 0.5% relative to efficiency will have the greatest
impact than the same-difference in terms of substitution.
In summary, the results showed that the best condition is com-
pression ratio of 17:1 and the use of the higher flow injector. After-
wards, the studies were concentrated for this condition and will be
presented in the following sections.
5.3. Combustion chamber pressure
As mentioned in the previous section, the working conditions
chosen for more detailed study were the ones with flow structure
that uses ‘‘high swirl’’, the injector with 45 g/s and compression
ratio of CR 17:1.
Although the values of combustion chamber peak pressure had
been obtained experimentally, they are not relevant for the studied
load levels. What really matters is the COVIMEP which is the coeffi-
cient of variation, cycle by cycle, of the indicated mean effective
pressure. This parameter is directly related to the variability of
combustion and the proximity of the misfire condition; which is
mainly influenced by the variation of volumetric efficiency, the
localized AFR and the flow in the combustion chamber in every
engine cycle. As shown in Section 4, the maximum allowed value
of COVIMEP (coefficient of variation of IMEP) was 3.5%.
In Fig. 7 are the COVIMEP results obtained with the injection
pressures of diesel fuel equal to 800, 1000 and 1200 bar. The pat-
tern used was the letters DE for Diesel–Ethanol running condition
and the letter D (diesel) in reference to the 100% diesel condition.
The condition D is represented with a continuous line while DE is
in dashed line.
In Fig. 7, it can be seen that the COVIMEP of the diesel operation
with ethanol (COV-DE) was between 1.5% and 2% at a load of 5 bar
IMEP, but for higher loads the coefficient of variation combustion
became similar to the values measured in the ‘‘baseline’’ condition
(COV-D, with diesel only). This trend for improvement in high
loads can be explained by the lower substitution rate, the best flow
conditions to prepare the ethanol–air mixture and also due to the
air fuel ratio which becomes less lean, i.e. farther from the misfire
condition. But regardless the fuel used and pressures tested, there
was no restriction for the DE usage. In no condition the maximum
allowable limit of 3.5% considering the studied loads were
exceeded.
147
The supposition is that in working conditions lower than 5 bar
of IMEP, there is a tendency of misfire occurrence. The explanation
is based in the latent heat of vaporization of the ethanol. The eth-
anol will be responsible for withdrawing heat from the intake air
and consequently hindering the start of diesel combustion.
5.4. Indicated efficiency
The results in Fig. 8 shows that at low loads, the indicated effi-
ciency of the operation Diesel–Ethanol (DE-Ind.Eff.) is considerably
lower than the ‘‘baseline’’ condition (Ind.Eff.-D, with diesel only).
However, this difference decreases with the load increasing until
the operation point where DE efficiency is higher than the ‘‘base-
line’’ condition, D. The most probable explanation for this, is that,
in the working condition of 11 bar of IMEP, operating only on diesel
the injector flow, in the injection pressures of 800 and 1000 bar, is
not high enough for all the fuel to be injected within an reasonable
time. Consequently, the AI50 value becomes significantly higher
than 8 °CA after TDC, as evidenced in Fig. 9. In Dual-Fuel mode,
when part of the combustion energy starts to come from the etha-
nol, which is premixed with intake air, the diesel injection pulse
width is decreased to appropriate values in order to maintain the
same IMEP. It is also possible to observe that, in loads from 7 to
11 bar of IMEP, the difference in the indicated efficiency between
the conditions of DE and D is less than or equal to 3%.
5.5. Crank angle of 50% mass fraction burned (AI50)
By observing only the injection pressure of 1200 bar at the load
of 11 bar of IMEP in Fig. 9, the ‘‘baseline’’ condition (100% diesel) is
able to have the AI50 advanced to the value of 8 °CA (crankshaft
angle degree). On the other hand, for lower injection pressures,
the injection pulses width required for injecting the same total
amount of diesel fuel are so large that it is not possible to have
the SOI advanced enough to achieve the MBT.
In Fig. 10, it is clear that even with the diesel injection pressure
of 1200 bar, and in the loads between 9 and 11 bar of IMEP running
in the DE mode, it was not possible to keep the AI50 in 8 °CA. This
difference, relative to 100% of diesel operation (Fig. 9) was due to
the knocking limitation, substitution rate and/or SOI, once the
higher is the substitution rate and the more advanced is the SOI,
the greater is the tendency to occur knocking in the combustion
148 R.F. Britto Jr., C.A. Martins / Fuel 134 (2014) 140–150

Fig. 7. Diesel only and Diesel–Ethanol mode COVIMEP.

chamber. In the case of this test, the adopted engine calibration
strategy was to retard the Start Of Injection (SOI) up to the maxi-
mum indicated efficiency loss of 4%, and thus, allowing the highest
substitution rate. To get an idea of this sensitivity, at the load of
9 bar of IMEP, in diesel only mode and with 800 bar of injection
pressure, the AI50 is at 9.8 °CA. If, at the same condition, it is
substituted 26% of diesel by ethanol (Dual-Fuel mode), the AI50
is advanced to 8.1 °CA keeping the same indicated efficiency of
around 50.0%. However, if it was tolerated a lower efficiency, for
example around 48.6%, this could allow an increase in the substitu-
tion from 26% to 46%, with AI50 at 10.2 °CA.
6. Conclusions and suggestions for future works
The main novel in the present work was presented experimen-
tal data about the utilization of the Diesel–Ethanol using the
Dual-Fuel injection concept. It can be highlighted the use of one
electronic system to control of the fuel quantity, diesel start of
injection and mainly there was one direct control of the energy
inside the combustion chamber using as reference the parameter
IMEP. The diesel fuel operation was considered the baseline value.
Thus, the efficiency values were all the time compared with the
diesel efficiency value (for each operation condition) and the sys-
tem allowed a maximum efficiency loss of 4%.
Firstly, the combustion chamber flow structure was tested and
the high swirl was chosen for all experiments.
After this, it was showed experimental tests using diesel engine
running with different combinations of fuel, the diesel fuel as
‘baseline’ and also Diesel–Ethanol in the Dual-Fuel mode. Initially,
it was tested two types of injectors, under three different compres-
sion ratios, namely CR 14:1, CR 16:1 and CR 17:1 with different
loads controlled by IMEP ranging from 5 to 11 bar.
Comparisons were made in the working conditions considering
both their substitution rate and their indicated efficiency. It is
known that, although it is most desirable as high substitution rate
as possible, the efficiency is also very important in practical terms.
The CR of 16:1 allowed the highest substitution rates, but it had

Fig. 8. Comparative of the indicated efficiency in the diesel only and Diesel–Ethanol mode.
 R.F. Britto Jr., C.A. Martins / Fuel 134 (2014) 140–150 149

Fig. 9. Indicated efficiency and crank angle of 50% mass fraction burned (AI50) for 100% diesel running condition.

Fig. 10. Indicated Efficiency and crank angle of 50% mass fraction burned (AI50) for Diesel–Ethanol running condition.

some disadvantages in relation to 17:1 of CR, since the latter led to
greater efficiency.
Another finding was that the indicated efficiency using Diesel–
Ethanol was higher with the lower injector flow rate (35 g/s) than
using higher flow injectors (45 g/s). It can be explained considering
that the positive effect from the combination of combustion cham-
ber geometry, swirl intensity, number of injector holes (injection
plumes) and diesel spray geometry of the lower flow injector was
able to yield a better combustion efficiency, even considering the
negative effects of the increased injection pulse width. This may also
be supported by the fact that most of the points sampled using only
diesel fuel also had higher efficiency with the injector of 35 g/s. Fur-
thermore, in the Diesel–Ethanol condition, the lower substitution
rates probably supported the higher efficiency in this condition.
From working conditions can be observed that the best results
in substitution rate were obtained with the higher flow injector.
Similarly, the CR of 16:1 showed on average a higher threshold
substitution rate due to a lesser tendency for detonation, while
the CR of 17:1 showed, on average, better efficiency.
Whereas the focus of the tests was to optimize the engine con-
trol parameters to achieve higher diesel substitution rates by eth-
anol, it was observed that the maximum substitution at loads
greater than 5 bar IMEP was 51% with the higher flow injector at
800 bar injection pressure. It can be noted that this value can be
changed via a new engine calibration; if permitted or desired other
variation limits efficiency over the baseline condition with 100%
diesel.
For future works, it is suggested to include the possibility
of varying the intake pressure, simulating the use of turbocharger
boost control or a throttle body. Thus, a new engine control param-
eter would be the air–fuel ratio used in each operating condition,
which may allow a more optimized combustion.
150 R.F. Britto Jr., C.A. Martins / Fuel 134 (2014) 140–150
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to VSE Vale Soluções em Energia for the
support to this work.
References
[1] Abu-Quadais M, Haddad O, Qudaisat M. The effect of alcohol fumigation on
diesel engine performance and emissions. Energy Convers Manage
2000;41:389–99.
[2] Bilgin A, Durgun O, Sahin Z. The effects of diesel–ethanol blends on diesel
engine performance. Energy Sources 2002;24:431–40.
[3] Boretti A. Advantages of converting diesel engines to run as dual fuel ethanol
diesel. Appl Thermal Eng 2012;47.
[4] Britto RF, Jr., Coelho E, Machado M, Rabello C, Frederico S, Martinek D, et al.
Development of heavy duty Otto cycle engine powered by ethanol. SAE 2013-
36-0324; 2013.
[5] Clean Air Power. <http://www.cleanairpower.com/australian_dual-fuel.php>;
2013 [accessed 20.06.13].
[6] Hansen AC, Zhang Q, Lyne PWL. Ethanol–diesel fuel blends – a review.
Bioresour Technol 2005;96(3):277–85.
[7] Hoeven MV. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion highlights. International
Energy Agency; 2012.
[8] Kowalewicz A, Paja˛czek Z. Dual fuel engine fuelled with ethanol and diesel
fuel. J Kones Internal Combust Engines 2003;10(1–2).
[9] Leermakers CAJ, van den Berge B, Luijten CCM, Somers LMT, de Goey LPH.
Gasoline port fuel injection on a heavy-duty diesel engine; 2011.
[10] Maji S, Pal A, Arora BB. Use of CNG and diesel in CI engines in dual fuel mode.
SAE 2008-28-0072; 2008.
[11] Motta GPO. Análise de alternativas e impactos para substituição do diesel por
etanol no processo de produção sucroalcooleiro. Trabalho de Formatura
apresentado à Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo, USP; 2011.
[12] Nylund NO, Aakko P, Niemi S, Paanu T, Berg R. Alcohols/ethers as oxygenates in
diesel fuel: properties of blended fuels and evaluation of practical experiences
published by TEC TransEnergy Consulting Ltd and Befri Consult; 2005.
[13] Pawlak G. The concept of a dual fuel highly efficient internal combustion
engine. SAE 2010-01-1480; 2010.
[14] Satgé de Caro P, Mouloungui Z, Vaitilingom G, Berge JCh. Interest of combining
an additive with diesel–ethanol blends for use in diesel engines. Fuel
2001;80:565–74.
[15] Volpato Filho O, Theunissen F, Pimenta V, Verginelli LH. Control system for
diesel–ethanol engines. SAE 2010-36-0161; 2010.
[16] Wannatong K, Akarapanyavit N, Siengsanorh S, Chanchaona S. Combustion
and knock characteristics of natural gas diesel dual fuel engine. SAE 2007-01-
2047; 2007.
[17] Waterland LR, Venkatesh S, Unnasch S. Safety and performance assessment of
ethanol/diesel blends (E-Diesel) – NREL/SR-540-34817 – September [2003]
Well-to-Wheels Report, available on the JRC/IES website at: <http://
ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/WTM>, Version 2c, March 2007.
[18] Westport. <http://www.westport.com/products/engines/>; 2013 [accessed
21.06.13].
[19] Wierzbicki S. Effect of the parameters of pilot dose injection in a dual fuel
diesel engine on the combustion process (2011). J KONES Powertrain
Transport 2011;18(3).
[20] Yoshimoto Y. Combustion characteristics of a dual fuel diesel engine with
natural gas (study with fatty acid methyl esters used as ignition fuels). SAE
2010-32-0050; 2010.