C o p y r ig h t 2 0 0 5 K S A E 1 2 2 5 - 6 3 8 2 / 2 0 0 5 / 0 7 4 - 1 0 T r a ns a c tio ns o f K SA E , V o l. 1 3 , N o . 2 , p p .6 5 -7 1 (2 0 0 5 )
1 . 1 )
, ,
,
.
,
*T o w h o m c o rr e s p o n d e n c e s h o u ld b e a d d re s s e d . m e d r@ c h o n b u k .a c .k r
, P M N O x
,
N O x 1 ) ,
(c o m m o n ra il s y s te m )2 )
, .
.
N O x
* 1 ) 2 )
1) , 2)
A Simultaneous Reduction of Smoke and NOx with Biodiesel Fuel in a D. I. Diesel Engine
Seunghun Choi*1) Youngtaig Oh2)
1)Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Chonbuk National University, Jeonbuk 561-756, Korea
2)Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chonbuk National University, The Research Institute of Industrial Technology, Jeonbuk 561-756, Korea
(Received 23 August 2004 / Accepted 21 December 2004)
A b s trac t : O u r e n v iro n m e n t is fa c e d w ith s e rio u s p ro b le m s re la te d to th e a ir p o llu tio n fro m a u to m o b ile s in th e s e d a y s . In p a rtic u la r, th e e x h a u s t e m is s io n s o f d ie s e l e n g in e a re re c o g n iz e d m a in c a u s e w h ic h in flu e n c e d e n v iro n m e n t s tro n g . In th is s tu d y , th e p o te n tia l p o s s ib ility o f b io d ie s e l fu e l w a s in v e s tig a te d a s a n a lte rn a tiv e fu e l fo r a n a tu ra lly a s p ira te d D .I.
d ie s e l e n g in e . T h e s m o k e e m is s io n o f b io d ie s e l fu e l w a s re d u c e d re m a rk a b ly in c o m p a ris o n w ith d ie s e l fu e l, th a t is , it w a s re d u c e d a p p ro x im a te ly 4 8 .5 % a t 2 5 0 0 rp m , fu ll lo a d . B u t, p o w e r, to rq u e a n d b ra k e s p e c ific e n e rg y c o n s u m p tio n d id n 't h a v e n o la rg e d iffe re n c e s . B u t, N O x e m is s io n o f b io d ie s e l fu e l w a s in c re a s e d c o m p a re d w ith c o m m e rc ia l d ie s e l fu e l. A ls o , th e e ffe c ts o f e x h a u s t g a s re c irc u la tio n (E G R ) o n th e c h a ra c te ris tic s o f N O x e m is s io n h a s b e e n in v e s tig a te d . It w a s fo u n d th a t s im u lta n e o u s re d u c tio n o f s m o k e a n d N O x w a s a c h ie v e d w ith b io d ie s e l fu e l(2 0 v o l-% ) a n d c o o le d E G R m e th o d (5 1 5 % ).
K e y w o rd s : B io d ie s e l fu e l( ), D ie s e l e n g in e ( ), E x h a u s t g a s re c irc u la tio n ( ),
S m o k e ( ), N O x ( )
,
.
(b io d ie s e l fu e l; B D F )
,3 ,4 )
, ,
. ,
S O x
5 )
.
,
, N O x
6 ) (E G R ; e x h a u s t g a s re c ir -
c u la tio n ) N O x
.
2 .
, , 4 ,
,
. T a b le 1 ,
T a b le 2 ,
F ig . 1 .
,
. , E G R
E G R ,
( 1 ) . , V0 E G R
Table 1 Specification of test engine
Ite m S p e c ific a tio n
E n g in e m o d e l N D 1 3 0 B o re × S tro k e 9 5 × 9 5 ( ) D is p la c e m e n t 6 7 3 ( ) C o m p re s s io n ra tio 1 8 C o m b u s tio n c h a m b e r T o ro id a l
Table 2 Properties of test fuels
D ie s e l fu e l B D F
F la s h p o in t 4 0 1 7 8
C a lo rific v a lu e [M J /k g ] 4 3 .9 6 3 9 .1 7 C e ta n e n u m b e r 5 1 .4 5 7 .9
S u lfu r(w t% ) 0 .0 5 0
C a rb o n (w t% ) 8 5 .8 3 7 6 .2 2 H y d ro g e n (w t% ) 1 3 .8 2 1 2 .3 8
O x y g e n (w t% ) 0 1 1 .2 6
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus
ç (1)
(m3/h ), Va
E G R .
, 3 0 3 -8 4 5 K
2 9 7 K ,
.
N O x
(H e s b o n ; H B N -
1 5 0 0 ) 3 0 0
, ,
3 . C O2, O2,
N O x 4 0 0
(M o to r b ra n c h ; M o d e l 5 8 8 ) . ,
(M J /k W -h )
. 1 0 0 %
1 0 0 % 2 0 , 3 0 , 5 0 %
.
3 .
3 .1 F ig . 2
.
. ,
,
1 2 % ,
3 %
.
(B S E C ) .
Fig. 2 Engine performance vs. engine speeds at engine load 100%
Fig. 3 BSEC vs. engine loads at various engine speeds
F ig . 3 ,
. ,
,
,
. , 1 0 0 %
6 .5 % , 4 %
, F ig . 2 3
.
F ig . 4 ,
, N O x .
, ,
, .
S e u n g h u n C h o i Y o u n g taig O h
Fig. 4 Smoke and NOx vs. engine loads at various engine speeds
,
.
,
. ,
,
5 )
Fig. 5 Comparison of exhaust Temp. between diesel fuel and BDF 30% at various engine loads, 1500rpm
. N O x
,
N O x . ,
N O x
, 1 1 .3 %
N O x .
F ig . 5
3 0 %
. 3 0 %
.
3 .2 E G R
, , N O x
. N O x E G R
, c o o le d E G R
7 ) .
F i g . 6
2 0 v o l% E G R
A S im u ltan e o u s R e d u c tio n o f S m o k e an d N O x w ith B io d ie s e l F u e l in a D . I. D ie s e l E n g in e
Fig. 6 Variation of smoke vs. EGR rate at various engine speeds and loads
. E G R
,
. , 2 0 %
E G R
.
.
, 5
1 5 % E G R
1 1 %
.
8 ) .
Fig. 7 Variation of NOx vs. EGR rate at various engine speeds and loads
F ig . 7 F ig . 6 N O x
. F ig . 6
, N O x E G R
. ,
2 0 % N O x
5 % E G R
N O x .
F ig . 8 E G R
, 2 0 v o l-%
9 0 %
. F ig . 5
1 5 % E G R
, 2 0 % E G R
.
Fig. 8 Variation rate of smoke on EGR rate with BDF 20%
in comparison with diesel fuel under varying speeds at load 90%
Fig. 9 Variation rate of NOx on EGR rate with BDF 20% in comparison with diesel fuel under varying speed at load 90%
F ig . 9 F ig . 8 N O x
E G R . E G R
E G R 5 %
N O x .
F ig . 1 0 2 0 0 0 r p m , 9 0 % 2 0 v o l- %
E G R N O x
. E G R
N O x ,
. E G R
3 0 % ,
N O x 6 2 % . ,
E G R
F ig . 8
Fig. 10 The effect of combination of biodiesel fuel and EGR on smoke and NOx emission
Fig. 11 Smoke and NOx emission vs. EGR rates at 2500 rpm, full load
E G R 2 0 %
.
. , 2 0 v o l-
% 5 % E G R
N O x 2 % , 1 6 %
.
F ig . 1 1 2 5 0 0 rp m
E G R
, 2 0 v o l%
E G R N O x
. N O x
E G R 5 1 5 %
N O x
N O x
E G R 5 1 0 %
. , F ig . 8 9 1 0 2 5 0 0 rp m ,
2 0 v o l% , 5 % E G R
1 4 .6 % , N O x 5 %
, 1 0 % E G R 9 .2 % ,
N O x 2 0 % .
, E G R
N O x .
4 .
, , 4 ,
,
,
. 1 )
,
. 2 )
,
, 1 0 0 v o l%
2 5 %
7 5 % , 9 0 % 4 8 %
.
3 ) N O x
,
, 2 0 v o l %
2 0 0 0 r p m ,
6 % , 2 5 0 0 rp m , 7 %
. 4 ) 2 5 0 0 rp m ,
2 0 v o l% 5 E G R
1 4 .6 % N O x 5 % , 1 0 % E G R 9 .2 % N O x 2 0 %
.
R e fe re nc e s
1 ) M . K o n n o , T . C h ik a h is a a n d T . M u r a y a m a ,
“ A n I n v e s tig a tio n o n th e S im u lta n e o u s R e d u c tio n o f P a r tic u la te & N O x b y C o n tr o llin g B o th th e T u r b u le n c e & th e M ix tu r e F o r m a tio n in D I D ie s e l E n g in e ,” S A E 9 3 2 7 9 7 , 1 9 9 3 . 2 ) D . Y . J e u n g a n d J . T . L e e , “ A D e v e lo p e m e n t o f
U ltr a H ig h P r e s s u r e I n je c tio n E q u ip m e n t f o r S tu d y o n D ie s e l S p r a y C h a r a c te r is tic s w ith U ltr a H ig h P r e s s u r e ,” T r a n s a c tio n s o f K S A E , V o l.1 1 , N o .5 , p p .5 0 - 5 9 , 2 0 0 3 .
3 ) M . Z ie je w s k i, H . G o e ttle r a n d G . L . P r a tt,
“ C o m p a r a tiv e A n a ly s is o f th e L o n g - T e r m P e r f o r m a n c e o f a D ie s e l E n g in e o n V e g e ta b le O il B a s e d A lte r n a te F u e ls ,” S A E 8 6 0 3 0 1 , 1 9 8 6 . 4 ) X . M o n ta g n e , “ I n tro d u c tio n o f R a p e s e e d M e th y l
E s te r in D ie s e l F u e l- T h e F r e n c h N a tio n a l P r o g r a m ,” S A E 9 6 2 0 6 5 , 1 9 9 6 .
5 ) Y . T . O h , S . H . C h o i a n d S . W . K im , “ A S tu d y o n C h a r a c te r is tic s o f R ic e B r a n O il a s a n A lte r n a tiv e F u e l in D ie s e l E n g in e (ò),” T ran s- a c tio n s o f K S A E , V o l.1 0 , N o .2 , p p .1 5 -2 2 , 2 0 0 2 . 6 ) S . H . C h o i a n d Y . T . O h , “ A n E x p e r im e n ta l
S tu d y o n S im u lta n e o u s R e d u c tio n o f S m o k e a n d N O x in a A g r ic u ltu r a l D ie s e l E n g in e ,”
T r a n s a c tio n s o f K S A E , V o l.1 1 , N o .3 , p p .8 5 - 9 1 , 2 0 0 3 .
7 ) Y . H . H a m a n d K . M . C h u n , “ E n g in e C y c le S im u la tio n f o r th e E f f e c ts o f E G R o n C o m b u s tio n a n d E m is s io n s in a D I D ie s e l E n g in e ,” T r a n s a c tio n s o f K S A E , V o l.1 0 , N o .4 , p p .5 1 - 5 9 , 2 0 0 2 .
