Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 376e385

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of the Energy Institute

journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-the-energy-
institute

Impact of DME-biodiesel, diesel-biodiesel and diesel fuels on the

combustion and emission reduction characteristics of a CI engine
according to pilot and single injection strategies
Hyun Gu Roh a, Donggon Lee b, Chang Sik Lee b, *
a
Department of Mechanical & Automotive Engineering, Induk University, 14 Choansan-gil, Nowon-gu, Seoul 133-749, Republic of Korea
b
School of Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 133-791, Republic of Korea

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

Article history: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of DME-biodiesel, diesel-biodiesel and diesel fuels
Received 15 September 2014 on the combustion and emission reduction characteristics of a compression ignition engine according to
Received in revised form pilot injection and single injection strategies. In this investigation, the effect of pilot injection and single
25 November 2014
injection modes were studied as they pertain to the combustion and emission characteristics of three
Accepted 25 November 2014
Available online 13 December 2014
alternative fuels. These tests were conducted to display the effect of a DME-biodiesel blend (DME80B20),
biodiesel-diesel blend (B80D20), and diesel fuel on a passenger car diesel engine. According to the
combustion characteristics, the DME80B20 fuel has a higher pressure than the B80D20 and conventional
Keywords:
Alternative fuels diesel fuel, while the DME-biodiesel blend exhibits a lower peak in pilot injection. The maximum
DME-biodiesel blend pressure of the pilot injection mode showed significantly lower pressure than for single injection mode
Biodiesel-diesel blend without pilot injection. In a pilot injection cycle, NOx emissions of DME-blend (DME80B20) are higher
Combustion characteristics than those of diesel and biodiesel-diesel blend (B20D80), regardless of injection timings. The soot
Emissions reduction emission was nearly zero for both single and pilot injection, though diesel and B20D80 fuel showed a
higher distribution of soot emission than that of DME80B20 in the case of pilot injection.
© 2014 Energy Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The emissions standards for diesel engines are growing increasingly stringent to reduce the concentration of particulate-matter (PM) and
nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. It is difficult to reach a state of clean emissions with current combustion technology, thus, various tech-
nologies for emissions reduction such as alternative fuels, advanced combustion technologies, and after-treatment technology will be
needed to meet the emissions regulations. The use of alternative clean fuels such as dimethyl ether (DME), biodiesels, and bioethanol is one
method of reducing the NOx and PM emissions in diesel engines [1e5].
The chemical formula of DME fuel is CH3eOeCH3; it is the simplest ether compound. Among alternative fuels, the application of DME for
diesel engines has been discussed by many investigators because it has no carbonecarbon bonds and excellent self-ignition characteristics
compared to other fuels [6e8]. The cetane number of DME fuel is significantly higher than that of conventional diesel fuel [1,9,10], thus, it
can be utilized to attain short ignition delay which then suppresses rapid premixed burning [11,12]. Cleaner combustion with low exhaust
emissions can be achieved when a CI engine is operated with DME fuel, than with a diesel engine fueled with conventional diesel.
During the combustion of DME fuel in the combustion chamber, the formation of NOx emission is dependent upon the combustion
temperature and oxygen content. Due to its excellent auto-ignition and higher cetane number characteristics, pilot injection can effectively
reduce NOx emission by shortening the ignition delay. The heat of vaporization for DME and diesel fuel at 293 K can be compared at 410 kJ/kg
and 233 kJ/kg, respectively [13]; therefore, the latent heat of DME is 1.59 times larger than that of diesel fuel. In general, a decrease in soot
emission creates an increase in NOx emission due to the traditional trade-off relation between PM and NOx. One of the great challenges for
high-speed diesel engines is the simultaneous reduction of soot and NOx emissions without increased fuel consumption [14,15]. Fuel-

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ82 2 2220 0427; fax: þ82 2 2281 5286.
E-mail address: cslee@hanyang.ac.kr (C.S. Lee).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2014.11.005
1743-9671/© 2014 Energy Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H.G. Roh et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 376e385 377

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus.

injection systems in CI engines play an important role in engine performance and emission reduction. In diesel combustion, the pilot in-
jection resulted in a decrease in combustion temperatures and a downward trend in main combustion, which contributes to a reduction in
the premix combustion period. Many studies have shown that problems related to DME-fueled engine systems include low lubricity, lower
DME heating value, and higher NOx emission from the engine. Methods for overcoming low lubricity include the use of additives on DME
viscosity-enhancing materials such as biodiesel, conventional diesel fuel, and other fuels [1,16,17]. Lowering the initial heat-release rate
during the combustion process can reduce NOx emissions. The generation of NOx emission is dependent on the maximum temperature of
combustion and fuel-injection timing. Suh et al. [4] demonstrate that the use of multiple injections is an effective method for reducing NOx
emissions, though more information is needed regarding DME combustion and the simultaneous reduction of nitrogen oxides and soot
emissions in the DME-fueled engine. The use of pilot-injected conventional diesel fuel to reduce NOx emission in diesel engines has been
widely reported; however, further study with regard to the multiple injection strategy of DME fuel in diesel engines is needed.
In general, pilot injection strategy is known for reducing NOx emissions and noise because it can suppress rapid combustion phase,
however, pilot injection strategy leads to increase PM emissions owing to its trade-off relationship. With this point of view, DME fuel has
oxygen contents and no carbonecarbon bonds [6,7]; therefore, it can be expect to reduce NOx and PM emissions simultaneously when
applying pilot injection strategy.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of pilot injection strategy on the combustion and emission reduction charac-
teristics of a compression ignition engine fueled with DME-biodiesel, diesel-biodiesel and diesel fuels. In this investigation, the emission
characteristics of the test fuels were studied according to the pilot injections in order to obtain the reduction effect of combustion pressure
for NOx, soot, HC, and CO concentration. The thermodynamic heat release characteristics were also investigated. The effects of pilot injection
on combustion and emission characteristics are compared with the results from biodiesel and conventional diesel fuel.

2. Experimental and numerical methodologies

The experimental setup was composed of a common-rail diesel engine from a passenger car, an engine dynamometer system, an
electronic control system, and a data acquisition system, as shown in Fig. 1. The experimental engine used in this work was a four-cylinder

Table 1
Specifications of the test engine.

Item Specifications
Engine type 4-stroke VGT DI Diesel
Number of cylinders 4
Bore  Stroke (mm) 77.2  84.5
Displacement volume (L) 1.582
Valve type DOHC 4 valves per cylinder
Compression ratio 17.3
Engine Management System Bosch EDC 16
Max. power (kW/rpm) 86/4000
Max. torque (N$m/rpm) 260/2000
Max. speed (rpm) 4750
378 H.G. Roh et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 376e385

Table 2
Specifications of exhaust gas analyzers.

Analyzer specification Accuracy

CO Model: MEXA-554JKNOx (Horiba) CO: ±0.06 %vol.
HC CO, HC: Non-dispersive infrared rays HC: ±12 ppm vol.
NOx NOx: Chemical method (ECS sensor) NOx: ±20 ppm vol.
CO: 0.00e10.00 %vol. Response 90% within 10 s
HC: 0.01e10,000 ppm vol.
NOx: 0.00e5000 ppm vol.
Smoke Model: AVL 415S Response: FSN/0.01 mg/m3
Filter paper method Repeatability: 0.005 FSN þ 3%
0e10 FSN (0e32,000 mg/m3)

diesel engine with a total displacement of 1.582 L. The compression ratio of the test engine was 17.3 to 1. As listed in Table 1, the power rating
of the test engine is 86 kW at 4000 rpm, and the valve mechanism is a DOHC four valves/cylinder mechanism. In order to measure the
combustion pressure with respect to crank angle, a piezoelectric pressure sensor (6057ASP, Kistler) and a rotary encoder (TRD-GK3600-RZ,
Koyo) were installed; a data acquisition board (PCI 6251 & SC2345, NI) and software (Labview 8.2, NI) were used to obtain the combustion
pressure and crank angle data (7200 samples per cycle) in real time. Furthermore, in order to increase the reliability of measured data, the
average value of 300 cycle data was used to analyze the combustion characteristics. In this investigation, the fuel injection pressure was
controlled via an electric control unit (ECU) equipped with a programmable controller. The fuel-injection timing was controlled using a
universal ECU system. The levels of engine exhaust emission including CO, HC, and NOx were analyzed via an exhaust emission monitoring
system (MEXA 554JKNOx, Horiba), and soot emissions were measured by using a smoke analyzer (Smoke meter 415S, AVL). The specifi-
cations of emission analyzer system were listed in Table 2. In this experiment, fuel injection current were obtained from 300 injection test
data of the control system of injection current of fuel injector. Fig. 2 showed the current profiles of fuel injection for the test fuels.
In the blending process, the diesel-biodiesel blended fuel (D80B20) and DME-biodiesel blended fuel (DME80B20) are well mixing and
maintaining the mixing stability with no phase separation [18e20]. As shown in property Table 3, DME fuel has high cetane number, lower
kinematic viscosity and lower heating value. DME is well soluble in biodiesel in any blending ratio, and soluble state is stable. Furthermore,
kinematic viscosity of DME is increased when biodiesel blending into DME fuel. In this experiment, 20% biodiesel was blended into DME fuel
(DME80B20) by mass to solve lubricity problems. As listed in Table 4, lower heating value (LHV) of DME80B20 and D80B20 is lower than that
of diesel fuel. Therefore, blended fuels need longer injection duration than diesel fuel to generate same engine power output.
The effects of pilot injection using the DME-biodiesel blend, biodiesel-diesel blend, and diesel fuel on combustion and emission char-
acteristics were measured from BTDC 50 to BTDC 10 , in intervals of 10 . Engine performance and exhaust emissions were compared for
DME80B20 and D80B20 fuel and conventional diesel fuel. In this investigation, the engine speed and load were fixed at 1500 rpm and
60 Nm, respectively. Detailed test conditions are summarized in Table 4.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Effect of fuel types on combustion characteristics due to injection strategies

Fig. 3 shows the effect of fuel types such as DME-biodiesel blend (DME80B20), diesel-biodiesel blend (D80B20), and ultra-low sulfur
diesel (Diesel) on the combustion pressure, rate of heat release, and accumulated heat release in a CI engine at 1500 rpm with various pilot
injection timings. The combustion characteristics were investigated with 50 MPa of fuel injection pressure, a pilot injection quantity of
1.2 mg, and a main injection timing of top dead center (TDC). As illustrated in combustion pressure, the DME blended biodiesel fuel
(DME80B20) showed a higher peak pressure than that of the diesel-biodiesel blended fuel D80B20 and conventional diesel fuel. Also, DME
fuel has lower bulk modulus than conventional diesel fuel at same temperature in a closed system [21]. Therefore, the higher compressibility

Fig. 2. Fuel injection profiles for the test fuels (average value of 300 cycles).
 H.G. Roh et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 376e385 379

Table 3
Properties of test fuels.

Property DME Biodiesel Diesel Reference

Formula CH3OCH3 e
Liquid density@ 20  C (kg/m3) 667 881 831 [21]
Lower heating value (MJ/kg) 27.6 39.17 42.5 [21]
Cetane number >55 48e65 40e55 [21]
Boiling point ( C) 24.5 315e350 180e340 [22,23]
Flash point ( C) 42 100e170 60e80 [23]
Vapor pressure @ 20  C (kPa) 530 e <<10 [21]
Kinematics viscosity (mm2/s) @40  C 0.184 at 298 K 4.0e6.0 1.3e4.1 [23,24]
Oxygen content (wt%) 34.8% 11.2% 0 [21]
Bulk modulus @ 10 MPa (MPa) 400 1700 1600 [25,26]

and low heating value of DME needs higher energy input and fuel quantity than that of diesel fuel. Therefore, it can be guessed that high
supplied energy of DME blend produced higher peak pressure at constant engine load.
The pressure rise near the TDC in Fig. 3(a) showed higher values for diesel and D80B20 fuel, while the DME80B20 fuel exhibited lower
values than that of the other fuels, primarily because DME has a low lower heating value (LHV) than that of diesel and biodiesel fuel. As
illustrated in Table 4, the LHV of DME80B20 is 29.92 MJ/kg, and those of diesel and D80B20 fuel are 42.5 MJ/kg and 41.83 MJ/kg, respectively.
In the case of same injection quantity, a low peak from the DME blended biodiesel combustion was observed because of the pilot injection
which was effected by the comparatively low LHV of DME. On the other hand, the rate of heat release of DME80B20 indicates that heat
release in pilot injected fuel occurs at approximately BTDC 10 . The heat release of the main injection showed the advanced burning of
DME80B20 fuel when compared to diesel and D80D20 fuel. In this condition, the conventional diesel and diesel-biodiesel blended fuel
(D80B20) resulted in higher pressure at the TDC region, while the DME80B20 fuel exhibited lower pressure than D80B20.
Fig. 4 illustrates the injection quantities of pilot injection and single injection operation without pilot injection according to injection
timings. In this comparison of injection mass, the injection quantity of DME80B20 exhibits the highest value for all test ranges of injection
timings due to the low LHV of the DME-diesel blend when compared to biodiesel-diesel blend and diesel fuel. Therefore, a DME-biodiesel
blended fuel is needed to consume the higher fuel quantity in order to produce the same power output. In the case of DME80B20,
considering the calorific value of DME and diesel fuel, DME fuel has two-thirds the LHV of conventional diesel fuel [21]. The difference in
heating value and excellent evaporating properties of DME fuel lead to increased fuel supplied to the engine, so that the injection quantity of
the DME blended with biodiesel (DME80B20) increased more than the diesel-biodiesel blend (D80B20) and the petroleum diesel fuel, as
indicated in Fig. 4.
Fig. 5 shows the ignition delay of the single injection and pilot injection modes for test fuels at an engine speed of 1500 rpm, an engine
load of 60 Nm, and a fuel-injection pressure of 50 MPa. In this work, ignition delay means the time interval from the start of fuel injection to
the release of the 10% of total heat energy of combustion in the engine. The ignition delay increased in single injection mode when the single
injection timing was retarded, and DME80B20 fuel showed the lowest value of ignition delay among the test fuels. This is due to the
excellent evaporation characteristic and oxygen contents (DME ¼ 34.8%, biodiesel ¼ 11.2%) of DME fuel, leading to faster combustion.
Similarly, the ignition delay of D80B20 fuel is lower than that of diesel fuel. As illustrated in the single injection case, the short ignition delay
of DME80B20 fuel means that the lower boiling point of DME and vapor pressure influenced on the fast vaporization and the decreasing of
ignition lag of DME blend spray. This result is compared to that of ignition lag for the DME diesel engine study of diesel and DME fuel
atomization investigated by Oguma et al. [9].
In a comparison between single and pilot injection modes, the ignition delay of the pilot injection mode decreased as the pilot injection
timing neared the main injection, because the combustion of pilot injection leads to higher temperatures in the cylinder.
The maximum combustion pressure of the single injection mode was compared with the results of the pilot injection mode for
DME80B20, D80B20, and conventional diesel fuels, as shown in Fig. 6. In the study of combustion and emissions characteristics of DME fuel
in a single cylinder engine, Kim et al. [8] reported that the combustion pressure resulted in a higher peak value than that of diesel when the
energy input was constant. The main reason for the maximum pressure was caused by the shorter ignition delay and fast ignition char-
acteristics of DME fuel.
In this figure, the maximum pressure of three fuels under pilot injection showed nearly constant values for all test ranges when
compared to the single injection cases. With top dead center of main injection timing, the variance between the maximum combustion
pressures of DME80B20, D80B20, and diesel fuel were slightly increased in accordance with retarded injection timings, though the

Table 4
Experimental conditions.

Item Conditions
Fuel Diesel, DME80B20, B20D80
Engine speed (rpm) 1500
Engine load (Nm) 60
Fuel injection pressure (MPa) 50
Injection strategy Single injection mode, pilot injection mode
Injection timing Single 9, 6, 3, 0, 3
(deg. ATDC) Pilot (tmain ¼ 0) 50, 40, 30, 20, 10
Injection mass Pilot 1.2
(mg/cycle) Main Variable
Lower heating value (MJ/kg) DME80B20: 29.92, D80B20: 41.83, Diesel: 42.5
380 H.G. Roh et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 376e385

Fig. 3. Comparison of combustion pressure, ROHR, and accumulated ROHR for DME80B20, D80B20, and Diesel.

increasing tendency was relatively small compared to that of single injection. In the assessment of combustion characteristics, the coef-
ficient of variation for the maximum pressure, COVPmax , is an index of combustion performance, as shown in Fig. 7. The COVPmax of the single
injection mode exhibits a greater variation in maximum pressure, though the variation in Pmax for the pilot injection mode is similar in the
wide injection timing range. From these variations in maximum pressure, we can conclude that pilot injection is an effective measure for
combustion stability and to improve combustion variation.
Fig. 8 shows the indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) distribution of the single and pilot injection modes for three fuels at a constant
engine speed and engine load. In the case of single injection, diesel fuel has similar IMEP values in the range of BTDC 9 to TDC, while the

Fig. 4. Comparison of total injection quantity for DME80B20, D80B20, and Diesel.
 H.G. Roh et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 376e385 381

Fig. 5. Comparison of ignition delay for DME80B20, D80B20, and Diesel.

Fig. 6. Comparison of maximum combustion pressure for DME80B20, D80B20, and Diesel.

distribution of IMEP at BTDC 3 decreases significantly. This is why diesel fuel has poor evaporation characteristics compared to those of
DME and diesel-biodiesel blended fuel.
Fig. 9 shows the exhaust gas temperature of a single injection cycle and pilot injection cycle with main injection as a function of both
injection timings. As shown in the results of DME80B20 fuel, the difference of exhaust temperature in the pilot injection mode between
DME80B20 and conventional diesel fuel was large gap, and the variations due to injection timing were insignificant for the overall measured
range. In the single injection mode, both diesel and D80B20 showed increases in the retardation of injection timings. This indicates that the
retarding of the fuel injection timings influenced the incomplete combustion of injected fuel due to late ignition timing, so that the exhaust
temperature is increased above that of the DME blended biodiesel fuel DME80B20. In the investigation of spray and DME combustion in a CI

Fig. 7. Comparison of COVPmax for DME80B20, D80B20, and Diesel.

382 H.G. Roh et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 376e385

Fig. 8. Comparison of indicated mean effective pressure for DME80B20, D80B20, and Diesel.

engine conducted by Kim et al. [5] reported a similar trend in exhaust gas temperature according to the IMEP for a single cylinder diesel
engine with 373.3 cm3 of displacement.

3.2. Effect of fuel types on exhaust emission characteristics due to injection strategies

Fig. 10 shows the CO emissions from the engine with one pilot injection mode and a single injection mode without pilot injection, when
the pilot injection amount is 1.2 mg and the engine has a speed of 1500 rpm. The fuel injection pressure and engine load were controlled at
50 MPa and 60 Nm, respectively. In the case of pilot injection, CO emission increased with the advance of pilot injection timings. In the case
of single pilot-main injection of diesel fuel investigated by Yoon et al. [27], the CO emission of DME and diesel fuel were decreased with
retarded pilot injection. In their investigation, when the pilot injection timing was retarded, a larger portion of pilot injected fuel was
burned, and CO emission was decreased. On the contrary, the advanced pilot injection brought about the higher CO emission due to the
incomplete combustion in the early injection range. As can be seen in Fig. 9, the CO concentrations of diesel and B80D20 are higher than that
of DME80B20 fuel because of poor evaporation compared to DME80B20 fuel. The CO emission in the single injection case shows a higher
concentration for biodiesel-diesel and diesel fuel than that of the pilot injection case.
Fig. 11 shows a comparison of HC emissions between single and pilot injection for three test fuels. In the case of HC emission in single
injection mode, the advance of injection timing brought about low HC generation for diesel and biodiesel-diesel blend (D80B20), while the
DME-biodiesel blend (DME80B20) exhibits a lower and slightly increasing trend compared to B80D20 and neat diesel fuel. HC emissions
were lower for pilot injection than for single injection mode without pilot injection. The HC emissions are similar for all three types of fuels
as the injection timing is advanced, because the ignition delay is shorter due to the pilot injection effect. In particular, HC emissions level was
similar values regardless of three test fuels, but its distribution is significantly decreased compared to the single injection mode.
In general, NOx emissions are strongly dependent on combustion temperature [28e30]. In pilot injection mode, as shown in Fig. 12, the
NOx emissions of DME fuel are higher than those of diesel and biodiesel-diesel blend (B80D20) regardless of injection timings. It can be
observed that the NOx emissions significantly decreased when compared to the single injection case. DME80B20 fuel showed higher
concentrations for all test ranges in pilot injection operation, while conventional diesel and B80D20 fuel exhibited low concentrations of NOx
emission. In the case of pilot injection case, the NOx concentration indicated the similar values at whole pilot injection timings. This trend for
the NOx emissions was similar tendency of NOx emission reported by Zhang et al. [31]. Their results showed that NOx emission was reduced
in the medium/load mode while the smoke emissions were increased.

Fig. 9. Comparison of exhaust gas temperature for DME80B20, D80B20, and Diesel.
 H.G. Roh et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 376e385 383

Fig. 10. Comparison of brake specific carbon monoxide emissions for DME80B20, D80B20, and Diesel.

Fig. 11. Comparison of brake specific unburned hydrocarbon emissions for DME80B20, D80B20, and Diesel.

Fig. 13 shows that the soot emission for the DMEebiodiesel blend (DME80B20) was nearly zero for both the single and pilot injection
modes, while diesel and D80B20 fuel in pilot injection show a higher distribution of soot emission. The results of diesel and D80B20 showed
the higher concentration of soot emissions than that of DME80B20 blend because the insufficient fuel and air mixing time before the
initiation of combustion in the pilot injected fuel.

4. Conclusions

In this work, the effects of DME-biodiesel blend, biodiesel-diesel blend and conventional diesel fuel on the combustion and emissions
characteristics of a compression ignition engine according to pilot injection were studied. On the basis of experimental results, the con-
clusions of this study are summarized as follows:

Fig. 12. Comparison of brake specific nitrogen oxides emissions for DME80B20, D80B20, and Diesel.
384 H.G. Roh et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 376e385

Fig. 13. Comparison of brake specific soot emissions for DME80B20, D80B20, and Diesel.

1. The combustion characteristics showed a higher pressure for DME80B20 fuel compared to B80D20 and conventional diesel fuel, while
the DME80B20 exhibits a lower peak in pilot injection with the same fuel quantity due to DME's low LHV.
2. The maximum pressure of the pilot injection mode is significantly lower than that of the single injection mode without pilot injection.
Based on the results of mean pressure, the pilot injection mode indicates a lower mean effective pressure than that of single injection
without pilot injection.
3. The HC emission for the pilot injection mode shows lower emission than that of single injection without pilot injection. As the injection
timing is advanced, the concentration of HC emission is similar for all three types of fuel due to the shorter ignition delay and excellent
evaporation characteristics.
4. In a pilot injection cycle, the NOx emissions of DME-biodiesel blended fuel (DME80B20) are higher than those of diesel and diesel-
biodiesel blended fuel (B20D80), regardless of injection timings. It showed that NOx emissions of pilot injection mode resulted in
the significant increase when compared to the single injection case.
5. In the case of DME80B20 fuel, the soot emission is near zero for both single and pilot injection, while diesel and B20D80 fuel in pilot
injection mode exhibit a higher distribution of soot emission than that of DME80B20.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by
the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-2012R1A1A2007015).

References

[1] S.H. Park, C.S. Lee, Combustion performance and emission reduction characteristics of automotive DME engine system, Prog. Energy Combust. 39 (1) (2013) 147e168.
[2] S.H. Park, H.J. Kim, C.S. Lee, Study on the dimethyl ether spray characteristics according to the diesel blending ratio and the variations in the ambient pressure,
energizing duration, and fuel temperature, Energy Fuel 25 (2011) 1772e1780.
[3] I. Sezer, Thermodynamic, performance and emission investigation of a diesel engine running on dimethyl ether and diethyl ether, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 50 (8) (2011)
1594e1603.
[4] H.K. Suh, S.H. Yoon, C.S. Lee, Effect of multiple injection strategies on the spray atomization and reduction of exhaust emissions in a compression ignition engine fueled
with dimethyl ether (DME), Energy Fuel 24 (2) (2010) 1323e1332.
[5] M.Y. Kim, S.H. Bang, C.S. Lee, Experimental investigation of spray and combustion characteristics of dimethyl ether in a common-rail diesel engine, Energy Fuel 21 (2)
(2007) 793e800.
[6] G. Thomas, B. Feng, A. Veeraragvan, M.J. Cleary, N. Drinnan, Emissions from DME combustion in diesel engines and their implications on meeting future emission norms:
a review, Fuel Process. Technol. 119 (2014) 286e304.
[7] T.A. Semelsberger, R.L. Borup, L. Howard, H.L. Greene, Dimethyl ether (DME) as an alternative fuel, J. Power Sources 156 (2) (2006) 497e511.
[8] M.Y. Kim, S.H. Yoon, B.W. Ryu, C.S. Lee, Combustion and emission characteristics of DME as an alternative fuel for compression ignitions with a high pressure injection
system, Fuel 87 (12) (2008) 2779e2786.
[9] M. Oguma, G. Hyun, M. Kono, S. Kajitani, Atomization Characteristics for Various Ambient Pressure of Dimethyl Ether(DME), SAE Int., 2002. SAE Paper No. 2002-01-1711.
[10] H. Teng, G. Regner, Fuel Injection Strategy for Reducing NOx Emissions from Heavy-duty Diesel Engines Fueled with DME, SAE Int., 2006. SAE Paper No. 2006-01-3324.
[11] M.Y. Kim, S.H. Yoon, K.H. Park, C.S. Lee, Effect of multiple injection strategies on the emission characteristics of dimethyl ether (DME)-fueled compression ignition
engine, Energy Fuel 21 (5) (2007) 2673e2681.
[12] M. Yao, H. Wang, Z. Zheng, Y. Yue, Experimental Study of Multiple Injections and Coupling Effects of Multi-injection and EGR in a HD Diesel Engine, SAE Int., 2009. SAE
Paper No. 2009-01-2807.
[13] J. Eirichi, E. Chapman, H. Glunt, D. Klinikowski, A.L. Boehman, J.G. Hansel, et al., Development of a Dimethyl Ether(DME)-fueled Shuttle Bus, SAE Int., 2003. SAE Paper No.
2003-01-0756.
[14] M. Zheng, R. Kumar, Implementation of multiple-pulse injection strategies to enhance the homogeneity for simultaneous low-NOx and -soot diesel combustion, Int. J.
Therm. Sci. 48 (9) (2009) 1829e1841.
[15] Y. Wang, Y. Zhao, F. Xiao, D. Li, Combustion and emission characteristics of a diesel engine with DME as port premixing fuel under different injection timing, Energy
Convers. Manage. 77 (2014) 52e60.
[16] I.M. Sivebaek, S.C. Sorenson, Dimethyl Ether (DME) e Assessment of Lubricity Using the Medium-frequency Pressurized Reciprocating Rig Version 2 (MFPRR2), SAE Int.,
2000. SAE Paper No. 2000-01-2970.
[17] S. Bhide, M. Morris, J. Leroux, K.S. Wain, J.M. Perez, A.L. Boehman, Characterization of the viscosity of blends of dimethyl ether with various fuels and additives, Energy
Fuel 17 (5) (2003) 1126e1132.
[18] S.H. Park, S.H. Yoon, H.K. Suh, C.S. Lee, Effect of temperature variation on properties of biodiesel and biodiesel-ethanol blends fuels, Oil Gas. Sci. Technol. 63 (6) (2008)
737e745.
[19] S.H. Yoon, S.H. Park, C.S. Lee, Experimental investigation on the fuel properties of biodiesel and its blends at various temperature, Energy Fuel 22 (2008) 652e656.
 H.G. Roh et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 376e385 385

[20] D. Kuurana, A.K. Agarwal, Oxidation Stability, Engine Performance and Emissions Investigations of Karanja, Neem and Jatropha Biodiesel and Blends, SAE Int., 2011. SAE
Paper No. 2011-01-0617.
[21] S.H. Park, C.S. Lee, Applicability of dimethyl ether (DME) in a compression ignition engine as an alternative fuel, Energy Convers. Manag. 86 (2014) 848e863.
[22] K. Wakai, T. Yoshizaki, K. Nishida, H. Hiroyasu, Y. Kawaguchi, Numerical and Experimental Analyses of the Injection Characteristics of Dimethyl Ether with a D.I. Diesel
Injection System, SAE Int., 1999. SAE Paper No. 1999-01-1122.
[23] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide, 2009. NREL/TP-540-43672.
[24] Y. Ryu, T. Dan, Investigation on the Effects of Dimethyl Ether Blending to Bunker Oil for Marine Diesel Engine Use, SAE Int., 2013. SAE Paper No. 2013-01-2659.
[25] H. Teng, J.C. McCandless, J.B. Schneyer, Thermodynamic Properties of Dimethyl Ether e an Alternative Fuel for Compression-ignition Engines, SAE Int., 2004. SAE Paper
No. 2004-01-0093.
[26] A.L. Boehman, D. Morris, J. Szybist, The impact of the bulk modulus of diesel fuels on fuel injection timing, Energy Fuel 18 (2004) 1877e1882.
[27] H. Yoon, K. Yeom, C. Bae, The Effects of Pilot Injection on Combustion in Dimethyl-ether (DME) Direct Injection Compression Ignition Engine, SAE Int., 2007. SAE Paper
No. 2007-24-0118.
[28] R. Stone, J.K. Ball, Automotive Engineering Fundamentals, SAE International, Warrendale, 2004.
[29] K. Wark, C.F. Warner, W.T. Davis, Air Pollution: Its Origin and Control, third ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston, 1998.
[30] H.K. Suh, H.G. Roh, C.S. Lee, Spray and combustion characteristics of biodiesel/diesel blended fuel in a direct injection common-rail diesel engine, J. Eng. Gas. Turb. Power
130 (3) (2008), 032807 (9 pages).
[31] J. Zhang, F. Zhang, G. Tian, H. Xu, Y. Li, R. Daniel, et al., The Particle Emission Characteristics of a Light Duty Diesel Engine by Using Different Pilot Injections, SAE Int., 2010.
SAE Paper No. 2010-01-1959.