This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Comparison of Combustion and Emissions Properties of Jet-A vs. ULSD in Both Indirect and Direct Compression Ignition Engines at Same IMEP
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published April 05, 2016 by SAE International in United States
Annotation ability available
This study investigates combustion and emissions of Jet-A in an indirect injection (IDI) compression ignition engine and a direct injection (DI) compression ignition engine at 4.5 bar IMEP and 2000 RPM. The Jet-A was blended with ULSD that resulted in 75%Jet-A and 25% ULSD#2 by mass. Both engines were instrumented with Kistler pressure sensors in the main chamber and the IDI engine had a second pressure sensor in the pre-chamber. Combustion properties and emissions from both engines using the 75% jet-A blend (75Jet-A) were compared to a baseline test of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel #2 (ULSD).
The ignition delay was shorter when running on 75Jet-A compared to ULSD in the DI engine. For ULSD, the ignition delay was 1.8 ms and it reduced to 1.7 ms when operating on 75Jet-A (difference of 6%). In the IDI engine the ignition delay for both fuels was 2.3 ms based off the gross heat release in the Pre-Chamber.
There were insignificant differences in 50% mass burned (CA50) for both fuels in both engines. In the DI engine, CA50 occurred at 368 crank angle degrees (CAD) for both ULSD and 75Jet-A. In the IDI engine, CA50 occurred in the Main Chamber at 374 CAD for ULSD and 75Jet-A.
A Low Temperature Heat Release (LTHR) developed in the DI engine for both fuels tested in this investigation. The LTHR is a product of fuel undergoing isomerization processes when initially introduced to high temp environments. However these LTHRs did not develop in the IDI engine due to the fuel premixing more heavily with the air thus the fuel and oxygen started their combustion process sooner.. AHRRs from the IDI engine showed that the premixed and diffusion burn stages were combined into one combustion stage for both fuels.
In the DI engine, NOx emissions produced from ULSD were 14.8 g/kWh and they reduced to 13.4 g/kWh when using 75Jet-A (9% reduction). In the IDI engine, NOx emissions were 1.7 g/kWh for ULSD and 1.8 g/kWh for 75Jet-A (6% increase). 75Jet-A resulted in lower NOx emissions due to the fuel’s higher vaporization rate compared to ULSD. It was discovered that the IDI engine’s lower NOx emissions were due to the low lambda value that the prechamber created.
In the DI engine, soot emissions from ULSD were 54.4 mg/kWh and they lowered to 50 mg/kWh when using 75Jet-A (8% reduction). In the IDI engine, soot emissions reduced from 6.7 mg/kWh when running on ULSD to 6 mg/kWh when running on 75Jet-A (9% reduction). 75Jet-A resulted in lower soot emissions compared to ULSD due to its smaller Sauter Mean Diameter of injection droplets.
The Jet-A showed significant reductions in NOx and soot emissions when compared to ULSD in the DI engine while having very similar combustion characteristics with ULSD in both combustion systems. Jet-A also resulted in higher indicated thermal efficiencies than ULSD in both DI and IDI engines. The findings in this study provides supporting results for Jet-A to be a viable candidate for becoming the fuel for the “Single Fuel Forward Policy”.
- Valentin Soloiu - Georgia Southern University
- Tyler Naes - Georgia Southern University
- Martin Muinos - Georgia Southern University
- Spencer Harp - Georgia Southern University
- Jose Moncada - Georgia Southern University
- Remi Gaubert - Georgia Southern University
- Gustavo Molina - Georgia Southern University
CitationSoloiu, V., Naes, T., Muinos, M., Harp, S. et al., "Comparison of Combustion and Emissions Properties of Jet-A vs. ULSD in Both Indirect and Direct Compression Ignition Engines at Same IMEP," SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-0733, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-0733.
- Beidel, E., 2012, “Officials Look For Ways to Upgrade HMMWV after Recap Cancellation”, National Defense, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/April/Pages/OfficialsLookforWaystoUpgradeHumveesAfterRecapCancellation.aspx.
- “Nato Logistics Handbook”. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, http://www.nato.int/docu/logi-en/logist97.htm.
- Murphy, L. and Rothamer, D., "Effects of Cetane Number on Jet Fuel Combustion in a Heavy-Duty Compression Ignition Engine at High Load," SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0335, 2011, doi:10.4271/2011-01-0335.
- Soloiu, V., Lewis, J., Covington, A., Nelson, D. et al., "Oleic Methyl Ester Investigations in an Indirect Injection Diesel Engine; Stage One: Combustion Investigations," SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 4(1):58-75, 2011, doi:10.4271/2011-01-0616.
- Nargunde, J., Jayakumar, C., Sinha, A., Acharya, K. et al., "Comparison between Combustion, Performance and Emission Characteristics of JP-8 and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel in a Single Cylinder Diesel Engine," SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-1123, 2010, doi:10.4271/2010-01-1123.
- Lee, J., Bae, C., 2012, “Application of JP-8 in a Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine,” Fuel 90 2011:1762-1770.
- Kotsiopoulos, P., Papagiannakis, R., Tsakalou, P., Gazinou, I. et al., "Experimental Investigation Concerning the Effect of the use of Biodiesel and F-34 (JP-8) Aviation Fuel on Performance and Emissions of a DI Diesel Engine," SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-1450, 2007, doi:10.4271/2007-01-1450.
- Ryan, T., "Correlation of Physical and Chemical Ignition Delay to Cetane Number," SAE Technical Paper 852103, 1985, doi:10.4271/852103.
- Yu, X., Zha, K., Florea, R., and Jansons, M., "Comparison of In-Cylinder Soot Evolution in an Optically Accessible Engine Fueled with JP-8 and ULSD," SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 5(2):875-891, 2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-1315.
- Lee, Je., Lee, Ju., et al., 2015, “Emission reduction potential in a light-duty diesel engine fueled by JP-8”, Fuel 89 2015:92-99.
- Yu, X., Luo, X., Jansons, M., Kim, D. et al., "A Fuel Surrogate Validation Approach Using a JP-8 Fueled Optically Accessible Compression Ignition Engine," SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 8(1):119-134, 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-0906.
- Taylor, C., 1968 , “The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice”, Volume 2, M.I.T. Press.
- Tsuji, F. and Neto, L., "Influence of Vegetable Oil in the Viscosity of Biodiesel - A Review," SAE Technical Paper 2008-36-0170, 2008, doi:10.4271/2008-36-0170.
- Seshadri, K., 2008, “Combustion of JP8 in Laminar Premixed Flames”, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
- Aradi, A. and Ryan, T., "Cetane Effect on Diesel Ignition Delay Times Measured in a Constant Volume Combustion Apparatus," SAE Technical Paper 952352, 1995, doi:10.4271/952352.
- Pundir, B.P., 2010, IC Engines Combustion and Emissions, alpha Science International LTD., Kanpur, pp. 111, Chap. 4.
- Jansons, M., Brar, A., Estefanous, F., Florea, R. et al., "Experimental Investigation of Single and Two-Stage Ignition in a Diesel Engine," SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-1071, 2008, doi:10.4271/2008-01-1071.
- Tompkins, B., Song, H., and Jacobs, T., "Low Temperature Heat Release of Palm and Soy Biodiesel in Late Injection Low Temperature Combustion," SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 7(1):106-115, 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-1381.
- Borman, G., Nishiwaki, K., 1987, “Internal-Combustion Engine Heat Transfer”, Prog Energy Combust Sci, Vol. 13 1-46.
- Heywood, J. B., 1988, “Internal Combustion Engine fundamentals, New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Soloiu, V., Weaver, J., 2013 “Cotton Seed FAME Combustion and Emissions Research in a DI Diesel Engine”.
- Cowdagiri, S., Cesari, X., et al., 2014, “A diesel engine study of conventional and alternative diesel and jet fuels: Ignition and emissions characteristics:, Fuel 136 2014:253-260.
- ASTM Internaltional Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels, ASTM D1655-15de1, 2015.
- ASTM Internaltional Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, ASTM D975-15c, 2015.
- Lide, D., “CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 88th Edition.” (CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, 2007), 4-92,