Fuel 259 (2020) 116231

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Full Length Article

Potentials to simplify the engine system using the alternative diesel fuels T
oxymethylene ether OME1 and OME3−6 on a heavy-duty engine
⁎
Dominik Pélerina, , Kai Gaukela, Martin Härtla, Eberhard Jacobb, Georg Wachtmeistera
a
Institute of Internal Combustion Engines, Technical University of Munich, Schragenhofstr. 31, D-80992 Munich, Germany
b
Emissionskonzepte Motoren UG haftungsbeschränkt, Johannes-Hüglin-Weg 4, D-78351 Bodman-Ludwigshafen, Germany

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

Keywords: Polyoxymethylene dimethyl ether (POMDME or OME) is an emerging synthetic oxygenated fuel indicating high
Oxymethylene ether potential to meet the increasing challenges of CO2-neutrality and sustainability. The excellent ignitability and
Diesel the sootless combustion of OME are ideal properties for its application in diesel engines. However, since other
Emission properties are fundamentally different compared to conventional diesel fuels, both its combustion behavior and
Combustion
necessary adaptations of standard diesel engine components and materials have to be studied in detail to realize
all advantages of this fuel.
In the present work, the combustion and emission characteristics have been compared between different neat
OME fuels and a reference paraffinic diesel fuel (PDF) varying several operating parameters of a single cylinder
heavy duty research engine. To evaluate the performance of unmodified nozzles, a variation of increasing load
has been considered. Moreover, the NOx reducing potential of the sootless OME combustion has been in-
vestigated by increasing exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) up to stoichiometric conditions and evaluated con-
sidering thermal efficiency and different strategies for exhaust gas aftertreatment. Furthermore, it has been
studied whether different OME fuels could realize a simplification of the fuel injection system by varying the rail
pressure and injection pattern. Finally, in order to find an OME compatible sealing material the change in weight
of several samples dipped in different OME fuels have been investigated.
It is shown that ethylene propylene diene rubber (EPDM) is an alternative sealing material for an engine
operation only with long-chained OME. In addition, it is proven that the particle emissions of the OME com-
bustion are comparable to citys immission level regardless of significantly increased EGR rates or very low
injection pressures. However, the emissions of methane rise drastically at stoichiometric conditions independent
of molecules chain length of the used OME fuel. Moreover, it is demonstrated that an injection strategy using
only a main injection could be possible, if the engine is operated with long-chained OME fuels.

1. Introduction
Current research focuses on (poly) oxymethylene dimethyl ethers
(OMEn) with the constitutional formula CH3–O(–CH2–O)n–CH3 as
highly oxygen-containing synthetic fuels with good ignitability [1,2].
Cetane number (CN) measurements show levels above the EN 590
standardization requirement of 51 except for OME1 with 28 [3]. [4] has
verified the applicability of OME1 as a neat substance in diesel engines.
They observed lowest smoke emissions in all operating points and no
luminosity due to heated soot particles in optical investigations. Even
with 30 vol% EGR leading to stoichiometric operation no increase in
smoke emissions but a noticeable decrease in NOx emissions is detected.
The major molecular difference between OME1 and conventional diesel
fuels is the absence of C–C bonds as a consequence of the included
oxygen atoms. The chemical-kinetic analysis in [5] indicates that the
suppression of acetylene formation is attributed to the missing C–C
bonds. [6] describes the formation steps of polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) and particles under fuel rich conditions with acetylene as a
molecular precursor. Moreover, the molecular bonded oxygen content
helps to avoid locally fuel rich mixture areas in the combustion
chamber. For these reasons a significant reduction of soot and particle
number (PN) emissions are observed in the case of using neat OMEn in
isolated investigations [7–9] or directly in diesel engines [10–21].
Different investigations have shown, that blending OMEn with
diesel would directly lead to reduced particular matter (PM) and PN
emissions and so enables to use higher EGR rates for a reduction in
nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions [11,12,18,19,22–27]. The operation of
a series heavy-duty engine fueled with 20 vol% OME3−4 reduces the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pelerin@lvk.mw.tum.de (D. Pélerin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116231
Received 21 January 2019; Received in revised form 12 September 2019; Accepted 17 September 2019
0016-2361/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Pélerin, et al. Fuel 259 (2020) 116231

Nomenclature HVO hydrogenated vegetable oil

IMEP indicated mean effective pressure
Abbreviations IRD infrared detector
mfb mass fraction burnt
CA crank agnle OME oxymethylene ether
CI compression ignition PAH polyaromatichydrocarbons
CN cetane number PI pilot injection
DME dimethyl ether PM Particular Matter
DMM dimethoxymethane PN Particle Number
DOC diesel oxidation catalyst POMDME polyoxymethylene dimethyl ether
EGR exhaust gas recirculation PMD paramagnetic detector
EPDM ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber RoHR rate of heat release
FID flame ionization detector SPCS solid particle counting system
FFKM perfluorinated rubber TC turbo charger
FKM fluorinated rubber TDC top dead centre
FTIR fourier–transform infrared spectrometer TFE/P tetraflouroethylene propylene rubber
LHV lower heating value VMQ vinyl methyl silicone rubber
H-NBR hydrogenated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber VOC volatile organic compounds

PN-emissions by 40% and the PM-emissions by 50% in the European
Transient Cycle (ETC) [25]. Additionally, particle size measurements
reveal a distribution shift to smaller particles when OME is added to a
diesel fuel [28,29]. Furthermore, investigations with optically acces-
sible engines using the two-color pyrometry technique indicate that an
increasing OME content significantly enhances the soot oxidation pro-
cess [18]. However, depending on the composition, blending levels of
about 20 vol% OME3−4 already lead to exceeding the EN 590 stan-
dardization limits for fuel density and viscosity [25], but the longer
chained OMEn help to fulfil the requirements for CN and flashpoint.
OMEn are easily miscible in diesel fuel and the current low availability
of OMEn with n > 2 makes an introduction scenario of OMEn as a blend
component in diesel fuel conceivable.
Only when OMEn is used as a neat substance, the PM/NOx trade-off
can be dissolved completely [11,12,18,19,30–32]. For the first time,
very low PN emissions were observed operating a compression ignition
engine with neat OME1 even at stoichiometric emissions [33]. The most
recent investigations are dealing with the right operating strategy for
the use of neat OMEn. High EGR levels, leading to nearly globally
stoichiometric conditions, lower the NOx emissions down to levels,
which are close to the limit of 0.4 g/kWh in the current European
emission regulation. However, the combustion under these conditions is
incomplete, which leads to increasing emissions of carbon monoxide
(CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) like methane (CH4) or
formaldehyde (CH2O) [10,11,13,14,16,17,20]. In the publications
[10,14,20] it is reported that an enlargement of the nozzle hole dia-
meters or an increase of rail pressure [11,17] leads to a compensation of
the lower heating value (LHV) and shortens the combustion duration,
because the nozzle flow reaches the same energy content with OMEn as
with diesel fuel. Thus, the indicated efficiency becomes comparable to
diesel operation or even slightly better. In [34] it is observed, that the
lower oxygen demand of OME leads to faster combustion compared to
diesel, since the combustion is closer to the nozzle tip, where the tur-
bulence level for mixing is high.
This work deals with a characterization of OME1 and OME3−6
combustion against operation with PDF at different load points re-
garding combustion behavior, emission characteristics and indicated
efficiency. Moreover, a detailed view is given on adding different EGR
levels and how it affects combustion, incompletely burnt emissions and
their conversion ratios in the diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) down to
substoichiometric conditions. The necessity of a pilot injection in terms
of ignition and combustion behavior are investigated in this work at
different load points. The aim is to find out the operating limits with the
scope on ignitability for OME1 with its low CN and the possibilities to
simplify the injection strategy for OME3−6 with its good ignitability.
Another element of this work is to identify the influence of decreased
rail pressures and the resulting longer injection durations with the goal
to simplify the injection system.
2. Fuel properties
OME1, also known as methylal or dimethoxymethane (DMM), is
synthesized by chemical reaction between methanol and formaldehyde
on industrial scale [35]. OME1 is initially intended to serve as solvent in
chemical production processes. Therefore a large amount of neat OME1
is available for engine tests. However, the synthesizing of OME3−6 is
achieved by multiple process steps including distillation to recycle
OME1−2 and OMEn > 6 [36–38]. Due to this complexity and the re-
sulting lower availability of neat long-chained OME, only OME1 and a
mixture of OME3−6 are considered in this work.

Table 1
Physical and chemical properties of OMEn with n = 1–6.
– OME1 OME2 OME3 OME4 OME5 OME6

CAS No. 109-87-5 628-90-0 13353-03-2 13352-75-5 13352-76-6 13352-77-7

Chemical formula C3H8O2 C4H10O3 C5H12O4 C6H14O5 C7H16O6 C8H18O7
Oxygen content [wt%] 42.1 45.2 47.0 48.1 48.9 49.5
LHV [MJ/kg] 23.3 [42] 21.0 19.6 [42] 19.0 [42] 18.5 [42] 17.7
Density (15 ° C) [kg/dm3] 0.86 0.98 [42] 1.03 [42] 1.07 [42] 1.11 [42] 1.14
Melting point [° C] −105 [43] −70 [44] −43 [44] −10 [42] 18 [44] 38
Boiling point [° C] 42 [43] 105 [44] 156 [44] 202 [44] 242 [44] 273
Flash point [° C] −32 [43] 12 54 [42] 88 [42] 115 [42] n.i.
Cetane number [–] 28 [3] 68 [3] 72 [3] 84 [3] 93 [3] n.i.

2
D. Pélerin, et al. Fuel 259 (2020) 116231

2.1. Homologous series of oxymethylene ether
The chemical and physical properties of the homologous series of
oxymethylene ether are displayed in Table 1. The increasing oxygen
content leads to a descending lower heating value (LHV) of long-
chained OMEn. However, the density rises with increasing molecule
chain length, which leads to a nearly unchanged level of the volumetric
energy content of all OMEn. Furthermore, the boiling point of long-
chained OMEn is near the initial boiling point of conventional diesel
fuel according to EN 590. On this reason, a pressurized fuel and tank
system is not necessary for long-chained OME, so that existing systems
designed for conventional diesel fuel can be used with only slight
modifications.
2.2. Tested fuels
which explains the drastic swelling both in PDF and OMEn. Generally
the increase in weight is becoming smaller for larger OMEn molecules,
as their diffusion into the sealing material is increasingly impeded.
PTFE consists solely of tetrafluoroethylene units and features a high
chemical resistance. In the present test PTFE swells neither in PDF nor
in OMEn. However, PTFE is a thermoplastic and does not possess the
elastic properties of an elastomer, so that it is suitable only for a limited
number of applications. FFKM showed the lowest change in weight
among all elastomers. It has a molecular structure similar to PTFE and a
high fluorine content of 73 wt% (FKM: 65 wt%). FFKM was the most
expensive material in the test.
In summary, EPDM is a cost-efficient alternative elastomer to FFKM,
as long as the engine is operated exclusively with OME3−6. When re-
sistance against OME1 or conventional hydrocarbon fuels is required,
PTFE or FFKM have to be applied.

Table 2 shows the fuels which are investigated at the engine in this
3. Experimental setup of the engine investigations
work. Hydrogenated vegetable oil (HVO) is chosen as a diesel reference
fuel, which fulfills the requirements of EN 15940. Especially at in-
The experimental setup used in the engine investigations is depicted
creased load points the absence of aromatics of this diesel fuel (PDF,
in Fig. 2. The research single cylinder engine is derived from a MAN
paraffinic diesel fuel) leads to a decreased tendency of soot formation
D20 heavy duty six cylinder engine. The engine components are not
compared to conventional EN 590 petroleum diesel [39]. Furthermore,
adapted to the use of OMEn fuels, so that both the injector nozzle and
both OMEn and the reference fuel are derived in a synthetic process and
the piston geometry are optimized for operation with conventional
are free of sulfur, which avoids poisoning of the diesel oxidation cata-
diesel. The fuel is injected by a common rail system. Since OME1 shows
lyst (DOC). OME1 is a monomolecular fuel, whereas OME3−6 is a
a high saturation pressure, the injector back pressure is set to 10 bar in
mixture of oligomers according to the composition shown in Table 2.
OME1 operation to avoid fluctuations of the injector behavior in con-
300 ppm of di-n-decyl ether is added to OME1 to improve its lubricity,
sequence of vapor bubbles. In addition, a fuel cooler is used to realize a
whereas OME3−6 includes no additives as its lubricity properties are
constant fuel temperature of 15 °C upstream the high pressure pump.
sufficiently close to the EN 590 standard (HFRR ⩽ 460 μ m). The volu-
The fuel system allows to switch between two fuel tanks during the
metric energy content for both investigated OME fuels is on a similar
engine operation, which improves comparability between the results
level, as the decreasing LHV for increasing chain length is partially
performed with different fuels.
compensated by rising density. While the CN of OME1 is drastically
The intake air is conditioned by an external air charger and a heater.
below the requirement of EN 590 (CN ⩾ 55), the CN of the OME3−6
An exhaust throttle controls the back pressure and allows to create the
mixture exceeds this requirement significantly due to its long chained
same conditions as if a turbo charger is applied. The test bench offers a
molecular structure.
cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system. It possesses both a
venturi geometry at the mixture area and a check valve to realize high
2.3. Material compatibility
EGR rates. The level of the EGR rate is controlled by a valve in the EGR
line.
As previous experiments have revealed poor compatibility of OME
A paramagnetic detector (PMD) determines the oxygen content of
fuels with conventional elastomer sealing materials [12], alternative
the exhaust gas, while a flame ionization detector (FID) is applied to
materials have to be investigated. While the hydrocarbon components
measure unburnt volatile organic compounds (VOC). Using a FID to
of diesel fuel are non-polar, the oxygen in the OME molecules leads to a
detect C1 molecules, a correlation factor significantly smaller than 1
pronounced dipole moment which makes OME a strongly polar fuel
has to be considered [41]. The fourier-transform infrared spectrometer
[40]. This requires the use of non-polar elastomer materials which are
(FTIR) is used to identify specific emission components in the exhaust
resistant to polar substances. The sealing material of the previous fuel
gas and is calibrated for different species such as OME, CH4, CH2O, NO,
tank system was the fluorinated rubber FKM with a fluorine content of
NO2 and CO2. Furthermore, an infrared detector (IRD) measures the
65 wt%, which was originally designed for conventional diesel fuel. To
CO2 content of the intake gas, by which the EGR rate is calculated. Soot
identify suitable materials for the present engine testing, samples of
mass measurements are based on the photoacoustic principle (AVL
seven different types of elastomers, shown in Table 3, are dipped in PDF
Microsoot Sensor). To comply with the particle measurement program
and neat OMEn with n = 1–5. Each material is represented by five
samples. The weight of each probe is measured before and immediately
Table 2
after a 100 h dipping period. Properties of the tested fuels.
Fig. 1 depicts the percentage difference in weight after the dipping
– PDF OME1∗ OME3**
as a mean value across all samples of each material. The standard de- −6

viation is also shown to describe the fluctuation. The materials FKM, H-

Cetane number [–] 79.8 28 [3] 75.2
NBR and TFE/P show a drastical change in weight when dipped in Diesel equivalent [m3/m3] 1 1.77 1.70
OMEn. As the monomers of these elastomers include either a fluorine, Oxygen content [wt.%] 0 42.1 47.9
nitrogen or oxygen atom, which has a high electronegativity, they show LHV [MJ/kg] 43.8 22.4 18.8
an increased affinity to the equally polar OMEn fuels. These materials Density (15 ° C) [kg/dm3] 0.78 0.86 1.07
Boiling point/range [° C] 210…302 42 157…259
show only marginal change in weight after dipping them in the non-
Flash point [° C] 73.5 −32 [43] 69.5
polar PDF.
Could filter plugging point [° C] −33 n.i. −24
The result with EPDM as a non-polar elastomer is therefore drasti- Kinematic viscosity [mm2/s] 2.92 (40 ° C) 0.33 (20 ° C) 1.19 (40 ° C)
cally higher after dipping in PDF compared to OMEn. The change in Lubricity – HFRR [μ m] 260 (60 ° C) 543 (20 ° C) 519 (60 ° C)
weight is less than 5 wt% for OMEn with n > 2, rendering EPDM an
appropriate material only for the use with long-chained OMEn. *OME1with 300 ppm additivation of long-chained polyether.
VMQ consists of both strongly polar and non-polar monomers, **Mixture of [wt%]: 43% OME3, 31% OME4, 19% OME5, 7% OME6.

3
D. Pélerin, et al. Fuel 259 (2020) 116231

Table 3
Investigated sealing materials in the dipping test.
Name Monomer Formula Polarity

FKM 1,1-difluorethene CF2]CH2 strongly polar

(fluorinated rubber)
EPDM ethene CH2]CH2 non-polar
(ethylene propylene diene rubber) propene CH2]CH–CH3
H-NBR acrylonitrile CH2]CH–C^N strongly polar
(acrylonitrile butadiene rubber) 1,3-butadiene CH2]CH–CH]CH2
TFE/P tetrafluoroethylene CF2]CF2 strongly polar
(tetrafluoroethylene propylene rubber) propene CH2]CH–CH3
VMQ siloxane R–(SIR2–O)n–R non-polar
(vinyl methyl silicone rubber) methyl CH3– non-polar
vinyl CH3–CH2– less polar
PTFE tetrafluoroethylene CF2]CF2 polar
(polytetrafluoroethylene)
FFKM tetrafluoroethylene CF2]CF2 polar
(perfluoroelastomer) perfluoromethyl- CF2]CF–O–CF3 strong polar
vinylether

Fig. 1. Change in weight of several sealing materials after 100 h dipping in PDF
and OMEnwith n = 1–5.

procedure a solid particle counting system (SPCS) including a con-

densation particle counter with a 50% cut-off at 23 nm is applied to
identify the particle number emissions. The exhaust gas treatment
system includes a DOC from Continental Emitec GmbH with a 40 g/ft3
platinum coating on a 300/600 cpsi metal substrate of LS type and a
volume of 1.64 l. The sampling point for both the soot mass and the
particle number measurement is upstream the DOC, where a 3-port/2-
way-valve allows to switch the measurement of the FID, PMD and FTIR
between upstream or downstream the DOC.

4. Test design of the engine investigations

Table 4 shows the operating points of the engine investigations.

Each operating point is measured twice with a recording duration of
30 s. The tests are divided into three parts. First, a load variation is
performed with the same boost pressure for all three fuels, while it is Fig. 2. Research engine setup.
controlled in a way that an air fuel equivalence ratio of λ = 1.65 results
for each load point with PDF. This variation investigates also the impact 5. Results of the engine investigations
on both the OME1 and OME3−6 combustion operating the engine
without pilot injection (PI). The second variation compares the emis- 5.1. Characterization of the OME combustion and emissions
sion and combustion behavior between PDF and both OME fuels with
increasing EGR rate at a medium load point. Finally, the rail pressure Fig. 3 compares the combustion of both OME fuels to PDF at a load
variation is performed at the same load point at decreased boost pres- point of IMEP = 10 bar. As the engine is equipped with the same nozzle
sure to demonstrate conditions comparable to transient engine opera- and operated at the same rail pressure, a remarkably longer injection
tion with delayed boost/rail pressure build-up. duration is necessary for OME due to its lower volumetric energy

4
D. Pélerin, et al. Fuel 259 (2020) 116231

Table 4
Test design of the engine investigations.
Operating point IMEP variation EGR variation Rail pressure variation

Investigated fuels PDF (only with PI∗), OME1, OME3−6 PDF, OME1, OME3−6 PDF, OME1, OME3−6
Engine speed 1250 rpm 1200 rpm 1200 rpm
IMEP 7–15 bar 13 bar 13 bar
EGR no EGR 0–28 wt% no EGR
Exhaust gas pressure ηTC = 60% ηTC = 60% ηTC = 60%
Boost pressure (abs.) Naturally aspirated −2.28 bar 1.93 bar 1.52 bar
Air temperature 40 ° C 40 ° C 40 ° C
Rail pressure 1800 bar 1800 bar 900–1800 bar
Injection strategy with/without PI∗, MI** PI, MI PI, MI
Centre of combustion 8 ° CA after TDC 8 ° CA after TDC 8 ° CA after TDC

*PI → pilot injection.

**MI → main injection.

Furthermore, the CO and VOC emissions are also significantly lower.

This emission behavior is also explained by the better carburation and
the molecular-bonded oxygen content of OME. In addition, the com-
bustion temperature has a strong impact on the CO oxidation. The
delayed burn-out phase of PDF leads to lower combustion temperatures
in consequence of the proceeded expansion stroke. This fact may con-
tribute to the higher CO emissions of PDF. Furthermore, the for-
maldehyde emissions are also highlighted, as the molecular structure of
OMEn includes a series of n CH2O- units. These emissions are lower for
OME1 compared to PDF, whereas the emission level of the OME3−6
mixture is considerably higher due to its larger amount of CH2O- units
present. Although the maximum of RoHR in OME cases is significantly
lower compared to PDF, the peak combustion temperature of OME
might be higher due to its early start of combustion. However, the NOx
emissions of both OME fuels are on a lower level compared to PDF. This
is explained by the shorter residence time at high temperature due to
the faster burn-out of OME, which is a main impact on NOx formation
beside of high temperatures.

5.2. Influence of increasing load

Since the combustion and emission behavior shows a close corre-

lation to the nozzle energy flow rate as described above, Fig. 5 con-
siders the influence of the engine load. Due to the lower volumetric
energy content of OME and the resulting higher amount of injected fuel,

Fig. 3. Combustion of PDF, OME1and OME3−6@ n = 1250 rpm,

IMEP = 10 bar, prail = 1800 bar without EGR.

density. At the same time, the curves of rate of heat release (RoHR)
consequently depict a lower maximum for OME1 and OME3−6. For this
reason, the OME injection and combustion has to be set earlier to
realize the same centre of combustion as with PDF. However, after the
main combustion, the burn-out phase of both OME fuels is notably
faster compared to PDF. The molecular bonded oxygen content leads to
less dependency on diffusion process to reach a A/F ratio for fast late
phase combustion.
According to Fig. 4, a drastically shorter combustion duration re-
sults for both OME fuels despite of the longer injection duration. This
fact leads also to a slightly higher indicated efficiency with OME in the
given load point.
The soot mass and PN emission level of both OME fuels is more than Fig. 4. Comparison of combustion and emission behaviour between PDF, OME1
one order of magnitude lower than the emissions with PDF. and OME3−6@ n = 1250 rpm, IMEP = 10 bar, prail = 1800 bar, without EGR.

5
D. Pélerin, et al. Fuel 259 (2020) 116231

increasing load. Moreover, the molecular bonded oxygen of OME leads

especially at higher load with increasing rich zones to a faster burn-out
compared to PDF. Thus, the difference in residence time at high tem-
perature becomes also bigger with increasing load comparing OME and
PDF. On this reason, both OME fuels lead to higher NOx emissions at
low load and to lower emissions at increased load points compared to
PDF. Furthermore, the OME fuels show at the low load point higher
specific NOx emissions compared to the medium load. OME3−6 exhibits
a lower NOx emission level compared to OME1. A better ignitability of
OME3−6 resulting to less premixed combustion and smoother cylinder
pressure increase could explain this fact.
The particle number emissions of PDF slightly decrease with rising
load, since the higher combustion temperature during the burn-out
phase fosters the particle oxidation. These emissions are for both OME
fuels more than two orders of magnitude lower compared to PDF.
However, both OME fuels tend to have higher particle number emis-
sions at increased load. The drastically enlarged injection duration of
OME leads to an unfavourable injection timing and conceivably to
spray-(cylinder-) wall interaction. Thus, burnt engine oil could explain
the increase of particle emissions at increased load for both OME fuels.
Nevertheless the emission level is still below the EURO VI limit.
Regardless of the load VOC and CO emissions are on a lower level with
both OME fuels compared to PDF.
Since OME3−6 exhibits a remarkably higher ignitability than OME1,
the necessity of a pilot injection is investigated in Fig. 7. Considering
the OME1 combustion, the favorable ignition conditions at increased
load lead to nearly identical heat release curves when operating the

Fig. 5. Influence of increasing load on combustion and emissions @

n = 1250 rpm, prail = 1800 bar, without EGR.

the maximal flow rate of the nozzle is achieved even at low load op-
eration with both OME fuels. For this reason, it can also be observed
that the maximal RoHR of both OME is nearly independent of the
considered load point, while PDF shows a remarkable increase with
rising load. Thus, the injection duration rises significantly steeper with
increasing load for both OME fuels compared to PDF. As a result of the
longer injection duration with OME, the combustion duration of both
OME fuels increases with rising load. In contrast, the duration of PDF
combustion is even shorter with increasing load, since there is only a
slight increase of injection duration due to continuously rising nozzle
flow rates. In addition, notably higher nozzle flow rates and subsequent
higher combustion temperatures accelerate the PDF combustion espe-
cially during the burn-out phase at increased load compared to a lower
load point as shown in Fig. 6. Thus, the duration of the OME combus-
tion is shorter only at low and medium load points, while it exceeds the
combustion duration of PDF at high load points. In summary, the ad-
vantageous physical and chemical properties of OME resulting in a
faster combustion are diminished at increased load for a given injector
configuration. Therefore, further investigations are necessary to modify
the nozzle flowrates in respect to the OME properties.
The NOx emissions of PDF rise with increasing load by reason of
higher cylinder peak pressures and combustion temperatures resulting
from rising maximal RoHR. In contrast, the maximal RoHR of the OME
combustion is nearly independent of the load. Therefore the difference
Fig. 6. Comparison of heat release @ increasing load, n = 1250 rpm,
of the maximal RoHR between OME and PDF becomes bigger with
prail = 1800 bar, without EGR.

6
D. Pélerin, et al. Fuel 259 (2020) 116231

In contrast, considering the EGR sweep with the OME fuels, both the
particle number and the soot mass remain on a very low, constant level
regardless of the EGR rate. OME displays a high EGR tolerance which
allows a considerable reduction of NOx, even down to 0.2 g/kWh at
stoichiometric conditions. Since the oxygen atoms avoid C–C bonds in
the molecular structure of OME, the formation of the soot precursor
acetylene is suppressed. In addition, the molecular oxygen content re-
duces fuel rich combustion zones. The risk of particle deposits and
fouling of components in the air and exhaust path is avoided with OME
and regeneration cycles of the particulate filter can be reduced.
Moreover, the sootless combustion of OME indicates also advantages in
transient operation e.g. at sub-stoichiometric conditions resulting from
delayed boost pressure build-up.
However, while the indicated efficiency is nearly independent of the
EGR for λ ⩾ 1.1, a drastical trade-off between NOx and indicated effi-
ciency is observed at high EGR rates. Besides dissociation effects, the
extended combustion duration and the consequently increased wall
heat and exhaust gas losses are the main reasons for the drastic re-
duction of the indicated efficiency at λ < 1.1.
Fig. 9 displays the impact of increasing EGR on the unburnt emis-
sion components of the OME combustion. The CO and VOC raw emis-
sions rise significantly for both OME fuels at λ < 1.1, since the de-
creasing excess air leads to larger areas of rich mixture. Besides unburnt
OME, the raw VOC emissions consist mostly of formaldehyde and me-
thane resulting from the molecular structure of OME including methyl
(CH3–) and methoxy (–CH2O–) units. While the CO emissions are
completely converted by the DOC at λ⩾1.0, the VOC emissions still
appear downstream the catalytic converter on a nearly unchanged, high
level at λ < 1.1. Using a FTIR spectrometer it is observed that these
tailpipe VOC emissions consist neither of unburnt OME or higher hy-
drocarbons nor of formaldehyde. As already observed in [12] for OME1a
(includes 6 wt% of an additive), the increase of the tailpipe VOC
emissions at λ < 1.1 can be mostly traced back to methane. This is ex-
plained by the inert behavior of methane in lean exhaust compared to
Fig. 7. Influence of pilot injection (PI) on OME1and OME3−6combustion @
increasing load, n = 1250 rpm, prail = 1800 bar, without EGR.

engine with or without pilot injection. A slightly longer ignition delay

and small differences in the premixed combustion can be observed at a
medium load point for OME1. Due to the low temperature and cylinder
pressure during the OME1 injection at the low load point a significantly
extended ignition delay is present without pilot injection. Thus, a re-
markably higher peak of the premixed combustion results, which leads
to a drastically increased mechanical stress for the engine and has to be
avoided in long-term operation. Independent of the load, the heat re-
lease curves of OME3−6 with and without pilot injection are nearly
concurrent due to the fuels high ignitability and short ignition delay
period. Thus, a simplified injection strategy without pilot injection
could be possible for OME3−6, while its suitability under cold condi-
tions still has to be verified.

5.3. Influence of increasing EGR

Fig. 8 highlights the impact of increasing EGR rate at a medium load

point, while keeping the boost pressure at a constant level. On the one
hand, the rising EGR rates and the subsequent decreasing combustion
temperature reduce the NOx emissions significantly. On the other hand,
the excess air decreases with rising EGR, whereby the soot limit of PDF
is reached at an air fuel equivalence ratio of ca. λ = 1.2 . Thus, the re-
duction of the NOx raw emissions by means of EGR is limited by the
sooting behavior of the fuel and carries the risk of fouling of exhaust
and EGR components like valves, cooler or turbine blades. Since the
raw NOx emissions even with EGR still exceed the Euro VI level of
0.4 g/kWh, complex and expensive exhaust gas aftertreatment systems Fig. 8. Influence of increasing EGR on combustion and emission behaviour @
are necessary. IMEP = 13 bar, n = 1200 rpm, prail = 1800 bar.

7
D. Pélerin, et al. Fuel 259 (2020) 116231

load point without EGR. The boost pressure is controlled in a way to

achieve a decreased, constant air fuel equivalence ratio of λ = 1.2. The
lower the rail pressure is applied, the longer is the injection duration.
Thus, the injection begins earlier to keep a constant center of com-
bustion, so that the maximum of the cylinder pressure moves closer to
the top dead center (TDC). However, the absolute values of the maximal
cylinder pressure and its maximal gradient decrease with lower rail
pressures in case of PDF. In contrast, as the extension of the injection
duration is significantly stronger dependent on the rail pressure for the
OME fuels compared to PDF, the shift of the maximal cylinder pressure
to the TDC is considerably stronger. Thus, the maximal cylinder pres-
sure rises for both OME fuels towards low rail pressures. In the case of
OME1 the pressure gradient at low rail pressures rises drastically due to
the low injection impulse and the unfavorable ignitability.
At low rail pressures a notable increase of soot mass, PN and CO
emissions occurs in case of PDF which can be explained by a negative
impact on mixture formation. Considering the soot mass and PN
emissions in OME operation, both OME fuels show a very low emission
level even at decreased rail pressures. As already mentioned in Section
5.3, the missing C–C bonds and the high oxygen content in the mole-
cular structure reduce the particle formation and enhance the oxidation
processes. The latter also explains the considerably low CO emissions
with both OME fuels even at very low injection pressures.
In summary, both OME fuels indicate beneficial emission behavior
compared to PDF when the engine is operated with low boost and rail
pressure e.g. during transient operation with abrupt load steps. Thus,
the sootless combustion of OME is likely to have advantages in transient
operation, since a load step can be immediately realized by extending
the injection duration without waiting until the boost and rail pressure
are built up. In addition, the possibility of a considerable lower rail
pressure level reduces the requirements for the design of the high
pressure systems. Furthermore, the application of a significantly de-
creased rail pressure level will reduce the power consumption of the

Fig. 9. Unburnt emissions with increasing EGR post and pre DOC @
IMEP = 13 bar, n = 1200 rpm, prail = 1800 bar.

the reactive formaldehyde and OME molecule. Moreover, no notable

differences of the methane emissions between both OME fuels are ob-
served, although the proportion of the methyl group in the molecular
structure of OMEn declines with increasing molecular chain length.
In summary, different feasible strategies for the OME operation can
be derived after discussing the EGR sweep and the resulting emission
behavior. Due to the sootless OME combustion even near stoichiometric
conditions, an exhaust gas aftertreatment system including solely a
three way catalyst is conceivable. Thus, a notable simplification can be
realized on this way. However, it has to be evaluated individually, if
this simplified system justifies the drastic decrease of the indicated ef-
ficiency at stoichiometric conditions. It is also to mention that very high
EGR rates lead to an increased risk of thermal damage to the engine.
A strategy of EGR control with an air fuel equivalence ratio of
λ ⩾ 1.1 can be recommended without remarkably reducing the in-
dicated efficiency. The significantly decreased NOx emissions lead to
advantages for a system with selective catalytic reduction or a lean NOx
trap. In addition, a DOC should serve to reduce the CO and VOC
emissions. Critical operating points with high methane emissions at
1.0 < λ < 1.1 have to be avoided, since methane cannot be converted in
a conventional DOC.

5.4. Influence of the rail pressure

Fig. 10. Influence of decreasing rail pressure @ IMEP = 13 bar, n = 1200 rpm,
Fig. 10 shows the influence of decreasing rail pressure at a medium without EGR.

8
D. Pélerin, et al.
fuel pump. As the volumetric fuel consumption with OME is about 80%
higher compared to diesel fuel, this helps to mitigate the negative effect
on the engines break efficiency. However, the injector nozzles have to
be modified to increase the flow rate at the lower rail pressure level to
avoid the highlighted negative effects of too long injection durations.
6. Conclusion
In the present work OME1, a OME3−6 mix, and a synthetic paraffinic
diesel fuel were tested on a heavy-duty single-cylinder CI engine. Prior
to the engine tests, different sealing materials of the fuel system were
tested for their compatibility with OME and hydrocarbon fuel. Samples
of the thermoplastic PTFE and the elastomers FFKM and EPDM were
found to be resistant to weight change when dipped in OME for several
hours, while EPDM failed the test when dipped in diesel fuel. As FFKM
is a cost intensive sealing material, future research and effort is required
to identify and develop economic alternatives for polar fuels such as
OME.
Soot and PN emissions of OME in the engine tests were drastically
reduced compared to diesel, while the NOx raw emissions remained
almost unchanged without further changes to the engine control.
However, OME showed a high tolerance against EGR without any in-
crease in particle emissions, opening the potential to reduce NOx raw
concentrations below current tailpipe limits without a trade-off with
soot or PN.
In a sweep of common rail pressure, the particle emissions of OME
remained on a very low level, while NOx emissions could be reduced
along with the injection pressure. OME3−6 with its high CN also al-
lowed to run the engine without pilot injections. This indicates the
potential to reduce the complexity of injection systems for long-chained
OMEn as the systems can be designed with less requirements on max-
imum pressure or multiple injection capability.
The experiments showed that it is necessary to adopt the injector
nozzle flow rate to the energy density of OME fuel (80% increase
compared to diesel fuel) to avoid inefficiently long combustion dura-
tions at increased engine load.
The analysis of organic components in OME exhaust gas with FTIR
revealed increased concentrations of C1 species like formaldehyde and
methane when comparing to diesel. While formaldehyde could be ef-
ficiently oxidized in the DOC, methane emissions should be avoided
internally by ensuring a sufficiently lean global mixture (λ < 1.1).
Further work is required on the design of OME injector nozzles and
the optimization of spray and mixture formation as well as on the de-
velopment of tailored after-treatment systems. Furthermore, the de-
termined development of OME engines in the future will demand a
consistent standardization of this fuel on national and international
level. An OME mixture with the following requirements is in ac-
cordance with the OME draft standard DIN SPEC 51699: den-
sity = 1045–1070 kg/m3; CN ⩾ 70; flash point ⩾60 °C. An important
task for the development of a standardized OME fuel is the definition of
purity requirements in production and necessary additives to enhance
lubricity, improve chemical stability (e.g. by butylated hydroxytoluene)
and avoid corrosion of common construction materials.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their gratitude to INEOS Paraform GmbH, Neste
Oyj, Analytik Service Gesellschaft mbH who supplied fuels for the tests.
Furthermore to Emitec Gesellschaft für Emissionstechnologie mbH and
Interkat GmbH, who designed the oxidation catalyst for the tests. The
exhaust gas measurement equipment was funded by the project xME-
Diesel granted by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Energy (BMWi).
9
Fuel 259 (2020) 116231
References
[1] Baranowski CJ, Bahmanpour AM, Kröcher O. Catalytic synthesis of poly-
oxymethylene dimethyl ethers (OME): a review. Appl Catal 2017;217:407–20.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201800068.
[2] Hackbarth K, Haltenort P, Sauer J. Recent progress in the production, application
and evaluation of oxymethylene ethers. Chem Ingenieur Tech
2018;90(1–2):1520–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.06.007.
[3] Lautenschütz L, Oestreich D, Seidenspinner P, Arnold U, Dinjus E, Sauer J.
Corrigendum to physico-chemical properties and fuel characteristics of oxymethy-
lene dialkyl ethers [Fuel 173 (2016) 129137]. Fuel 2017;209:812. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2017.07.083.
[4] Ogawa H, Nabi N, Minami M, Miyamoto N, Bong-Seock K. Ultra low emissions and
high performance diesel combustion with a combination of high egr, three-way
catalyst, and a highly oxygenated fuel, dimethoxy methane (DMM). SAE 2000-01-
1819.https://doi.org/10.4271/2000-01-1819.
[5] Ogawa H, Miyamoto N, Masayuki Y. Chemical-kinetic analysis on pah formation
mechanisms of oxygenated fuels. SAE 2003-01-3190.https://doi.org/10.4271/
2003-01-3190.
[6] Frenklach M, Wang H. Detailed mechanism and modeling of soot particle formation.
In: Bockhorn H, editor. Soot formation in combustion. Berlin i.a: Springer-Verlag;
1994. p. 165–92.
[7] Iannuzzi SE, Barro C, Boulouchos K, Burger J. Combustion behavior and soot for-
mation/oxidation of oxygenated fuels in a cylindrical constant volume chamber.
Fuel 2016;167:49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.11.060.
[8] Kitamura T, Ito T, Senda J, Fujimoto H. Detailed chemical kinetic modeling of diesel
spray combustion with oxygenated fuels. SAE 2001-01-1262.https://doi.org/10.
4271/2001-01-1262.
[9] Sun W, et al. Speciation and the laminar burning velocities of poly(oxymethylene)
dimethyl ether 3 (POMDME3) flames: an experimental and modeling study. Proc
Combust Inst 2017;36(1):1269–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2016.05.058.
[10] Barro C, Parravicini M, Boulouchus K, Liati A. Neat polyoxymethylene dimethyl
ether in a diesel engine; part 2: exhaust emission analysis. Fuel 2018;234:1414–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.07.108.
[11] Damyanov A, Hofmann P, Geringer B, Schwaiger N, Pichler T, Siebenhofer M.
Biogenous ethers: production and operation in a diesel engine. Autom Eng Technol
2018;3(1–2):69–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41104-018-0028-x.
[12] Härtl M, Seidenspinner P, Jacob E, Wachtmeister G. Oxygenate screening on a
heavy-duty diesel engine and emission characteristics of highly oxygenated oxy-
methylene ether fuel OME1. Fuel 2015;153:328–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2015.03.012.
[13] Härtl M, Gaukel K, Pélerin D, Wachtmeister G, Jacob E. Oxymethylene ether as
potentially CO2-neutral fuel for clean diesel engines part 1: engine testing. MTZ
Worldwide 2017;78:52–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s38313-016-0163-6.
[14] Härtl M, Pélerin D, Dworschak P, Maier T, Stadler A, Blochum S. Potential of the
sustainable C1-fuels OME, DMC and MeFo for particulate free combustion in DI and
SI engines. In: Liebl J, Maus W, Beidl C, editors. Internationaler Motorenkongress
2018 Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg; 2018. p. 459–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-658-21015-1.
[15] Münz M, Feiling C, Alexander Beidl M, Härtl D, Pélerin G Wachtmeister.
Oxymethylene ether (OME1) as a synthetic low-emission fuel for DI diesel engines.
In: Liebl J, Beidl C, editors. Internationaler Motorenkongress 2016 Wiesbaden:
Springer Vieweg; 2016. p. 537–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12918-7.
[16] Pélerin D, Gaukel K, Härtl M, Wachtmeister G. Recent results of the sootless diesel
fuel oxymethylene ether. In: Liebl J, Beidl C, editors. Internationaler
Motorenkongress 2017 Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg; 2017. p. 439–56. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-658-17109-4.
[17] Pélerin D, Gaukel K, Härtl M, Wachtmeister G. Simplifying of the fuel injection
system and lowest emissions with the alternative diesel fuel oxymethylene ether. In:
Eichelseder H, Wimmer A, editors. The working process of the internal combustion
engine, 16th conference. Graz: Verlag der Technischen Universitt Graz; 2017. p.
480–95.
[18] L. Pellegrini, M. Marchionna, R. Patrini, Combustion Behaviour and Emission
Performance of Neat and Blended Polyoxymethylene Dimethyl Ethers in a Light-
Duty Diesel Engine, SAE 2012–01-1053 doi:10.4271/2012-01-1053.
[19] Pellegrini L, Marchionna M, Patrini R, Florio S. Emission performance of neat and
blended polyoxymethylene dimethyl ethers in an old light-duty diesel car. SAE
2013-01-1035.https://doi.org/10.4271/2013-01-1035.
[20] Richter G, Zellbeck H. Oxymethylene ethers as an alternative for passenger car
diesel engines. MTZ Worldwide 2017;78(12):60–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s38313-017-0126-6.
[21] Schmitt M, Feiling A, Beidl C, von Pyschow C, Jacob E. Potential des synthetischen
Kraftstoffs OME1 zur Emissionsreduzierung bei Dieselbrennverfahren. In: Liebl J,
Beidl C, editors. Internationaler Motorenkongress 2015 Wiesbaden: Springer
Vieweg; 2015. p. 265–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-08861.
[22] Iannuzzi SE, Barro C, Boulouchos K, Burger J. POMDME-diesel blends: evaluation of
performance and exhaust emissions in a single cylinder heavy-duty diesel engine.
Fuel 2017;203:57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.04.089.
[23] Kocis D, Song K, Lee H, Litzinger T. Effects of dimethoxymethane and di-
methylcarbonate on soot production in an optically-accessible DI diesel engine. SAE
2000-01-2795.https://doi.org/10.4271/2000-01-2795.
[24] Liu J, Li Y, Zheng Z, Xue Z, Shang H, Yao M. Effects of diesel/PODE (poly-
oxymethylene dimethyl ethers) blends on combustion and emission characteristics
in a heavy duty diesel engine. Fuel 2016;177:206–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2016.03.019.
D. Pélerin, et al.
[25] Lumpp B, Rothe D, Pastötter C, Lämmermann R, Jacob E. Oxymethylene ethers as
diesel fuels additives of the future. MTZ Worldwide 2011;72(3):34–8. https://doi.
org/10.1365/s38313-011-0027-z.
[26] Song KH, Litzinger T. Effects of dimethoxymethane blending into diesel fuel on soot
in an optically accessible DI diesel engine. Combust Sci Technol
2006;178(12):2249–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102200600637204.
[27] Vertin KD, Ohi JM, Naegeli DW, Childress KH, Hagen GP, McCarthy CI. Methylal
and methylal-diesel blended fuels for use in compression-ignition engines. SAE
1999-01-1508.https://doi.org/10.4271/1999-01-1508.
[28] Maricq MM, Chase RE, Podsiadlik DH, Siegl WO, Kaiser EW. The effect of di-
methoxy methane additive on diesel vehicle particulate emissions. SAE 982572.
https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-2179.
[29] Zhu R, Wang X, Miao H, Yang X, Huang Z. Effect of dimethoxy-methane and ex-
haust gas recirculation on combustion and emission characteristics of a direct in-
jection diesel engine. Fuel 2011;90(5):1731–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.
2011.01.035.
[30] Omari A, Heuser B, Pischinger S. Effect of dimethoxy-methane and exhaust gas
recirculation on combustion and emission characteristics of a direct injection diesel
engine. Fuel 2017;209(5):232–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.07.107.
[31] Gaukel K, Pélerin D, Härtl M, Wachtmeister G, Burger J, Maus W. The fuel OME2:
an example to pave the way to emission-neutral vehicles with internal combustion
engine. In: Lenz HP, editor. 37. Internationales Wiener Motorensymposium, vol.
777. Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag; 2016. p. 193–223.
[32] Maus W, Jacob E, Härtl M, Seidenspinner P, Wachtmeister G. Synthetic fuels –
OME1: a potentially sustainable diesel fuel. In: Lenz HP, editor. 35. Internationales
Wiener Motorensymposium, vol. 777. Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag; 2014. p. 325–47.
[33] Härtl M, Seidenspinner P, Wachtmeister G, Jacob E. Synthetic diesel fuel OME1 a
pathway out of the soot-NOx trade-off. MTZ Worldwide 2014;75(7–8):48–53.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s38313-014-0173-1.
[34] Barro C, Parravicini M, Boulouchus K. Neat polyoxymethylene dimethyl ether in a
diesel engine; part 1: detailed combustion analysis. Fuel 2019;256:1–8. https://doi.
10
Fuel 259 (2020) 116231
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.115892.
[35] Drunsel J-O, Renner M, Hasse H. Experimental study and model of reaction kinetics
of heterogeneously catalyzed methylal synthesis. Chem Eng Res Des
2012;90:696–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2011.09.014.
[36] Burger J, Siegert M, Ströfer E, Hasse H. Poly(oxymethylene) dimethyl ethers as
components of tailored diesel fuel: properties, synthesis and purification concepts.
Fuel 2010;89(11):3315–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.05.014.
[37] Burger J, Ströfer E, Hasse H. Production process for diesel fuel components poly
(oxymethylene) dimethyl ethers from methane-based products by hierarchical op-
timization with varying model depth. Chem Eng Res Des 2013;91(12):2648–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2013.05.023.
[38] Schmitz N, Ströfer E, Burger J, Hasse H. Conceptual design of a novel process for the
production of poly(oxymethylene) dimethyl ethers from formaldehyde and me-
thanol. Ind Eng Chem Res 2017;56(40):11519–30. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
iecr.7b02314.
[39] Zubel M, Bhardwaj OP, Heuser B, Holderbaum B, Doerr S, Nuottimäki J. Advanced
fuel formulation approach using blends of paraffinic and oxygenated biofuels:
analysis of emission reduction potential in a high efficiency diesel combustion
system. SAE 2016-01-2179.https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-2179.
[40] Uchida T, Kurita Y, Kubo M. The dipole moments and the structure of poly-
oxymethylene dimethyl ethers. J Polym Sci 1956;19(92):365–72. https://doi.org/
10.1002/pol.1956.120199215.
[41] Yieru H, Qingyu O, Weile Y. Characteristics of flame ionization detection for the
quantitative analysis of complex organic mixtures. Anal Chem 1990;62:2063–4.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00217a033.
[42] Lautenschütz L, Oestreich D, Seidenspinner P, Arnold U, Dinjus E, Sauer J. Physico-
chemical properties and fuel characteristics of oxymethylene dialkyl ethers. Fuel
2017;173:129–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.01.06.
[43] Lide D. CRC handbook of chemistry and physics. 93rd ed. Taylor and Francis; 2012.
[44] Boyd R. Some physical properties of polyoxymethylene dimethyl ethers. J Polym Sci
1961;50(153):133–41.