Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A review on low temperature combustion engines: Performance, combustion T

and emission characteristics
M. Krishnamoorthia, R. Malayalamurthib, Zhixia Hea,∗, Sabariswaran Kandasamya
a
Institute for Energy Research, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, 212013, PR China
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Alagappa Chettiar Government College of Engineering and Technology, Karaikudi, 630003, Tamil Nadu, India

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

Keywords: Low temperature combustion (LTC) is a recent engine technology that can reduce the oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
LTC and soot emissions simultaneously while maintaining higher thermal efficiency. The present review work in-
RCCI vestigates the performance, emission and combustion characteristics of LTC mode engines. Partially premixed
Thermal efficiency LTC (PPLTC), homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI), premixed charge compression ignition (PCCI)
Combustion phasing
and reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) modes are researched under LTC mode. In recent decades,
Emission behaviors
different engine strategies have been employed to reduce exhaust emissions and to enhance thermal efficiency.
Exhaust gas recirculation, variable valve timing (VVT), advanced fuel injection technologies are adapted to
achieve LTC mode in internal combustion (IC) engines to get improved outcomes. This review highlights the
properties of fuels, fuel supply systems, valve actuation mechanisms, engine operating conditions and its effects
on the engine characteristics. This review provides a perspective plan to the researchers for enhancing the
performance, emission and combustion behavior of an engine by using LTC mode with lower NOx and soot
emissions. Among LTC mode engines, RCCI mode engine operates well in 60% load, 60% premixed ratio, 35:1
air-fuel ratio and 56% brake thermal efficiency within the combustion phasing control.

1. Introduction
The invention of internal combustion (IC) engine has contributed to
human civilization and industrialization. The simultaneous growth of
industrialization and engine population combined with the depletion of
fossil resources lead to increased fuel price [1]. World's primary energy
consumption grew up by 2.2% in 2017 as compared to that of 2016. Oil
is the dominant fuel in Europe, Africa, and the Americas, while coal is
the leading fuel in the Asia Pacific province [2–4]. Oil remains the
world's dominant fuel, making up just over a third of all energies
consumed. Presently, the petroleum products, in which gasoline and
diesel are two major fuels predominately used in the transportation
sector (about 65%). Internal combustion (IC) engines are producing
various emissions and greenhouse gases from fuel combustion. The
unburned hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), Oxides of ni-
trogen (NOx), smoke opacity, carbon dioxide (CO2) and particulate
matter (PM) are main constituents of the exhaust gas [5–7]. The HC and
CO react in the presence of NOx and sunlight to form ground-level
ozone; this is dangerous for the living environment [8–10]. Many al-
ternatives to IC engines have been proposed in the recent past, directing
to cleaner and sustainable energy utilization. These mainly include a
hydrogen fuel cell, electrical battery and external combustion engines
for the transportation sector. Nevertheless, none of these alternatives
have yet succeeded in challenging the dominant role of IC engines. This
is particularly applicable in the heavy-duty sector, long-distance tra-
velling commercial vehicles [11]. Due to the shortage, emission issues
and price concern, the researchers are trying to find a suitable diesel
substitute fuels. Day-by-day, the emission regulatory bodies tighten the
exhaust emission norms for combustion engines [12]. Alcohols, second
and third-generation biodiesels are gaining worldwide attention be-
cause of their sustainability and effective role in reducing emissions
[13]. Biodiesels are offering improved tribological properties, better
cetane number (CN) and adequately lesser HC and CO emissions.
However, it reacts with atmospheric oxygen and produces vaporizable
compounds and caustic carboxylic acids, which deteriorates the fuel
properties [14]. Due to the practical constraints of biodiesel usage, the
fossil diesel, alcohols, nanoparticles such as zinc oxide, cerium oxide
and antioxidants such as butylated hydroxyanisole, pyrogallol, etc. are
usually blended with biodiesels before the engine experimentation
work [15]. Some biofuels (pine oil, orange oil and lemongrass oil) can
be used directly or blended with fossil diesel without any chemical
conversion process. These oils are generally denoted as low viscous and

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zxhe@ujs.edu.cn (Z. He).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109404
Received 16 February 2019; Received in revised form 14 September 2019; Accepted 18 September 2019
1364-0321/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404

Abbreviations ID ignition delay

ISFC indicated specific fuel consumption
AFR air-fuel ratio IVC intake valve close
ASTM American society for testing and testing IVO intake valve open
aTDC after top dead center IT injection timing
BP brake power JCCI jet controlled compression ignition
BSFC brake specific fuel consumption L engine load
bTDC before top dead center LH latent heat
BTE brake thermal efficiency LHV lower heating value
CA crank angle LTC low temperature combustion
CA50 crank angle where 50% of the total heat release occurs LRF low reactivity fuel
CA90 crank angle where 90% of the total heat release occurs MEP mean effective pressure
CAD crank angle degree N engine speed
CAI controlled auto-ignition NA naturally aspirated
CC combustion chamber NOx oxides of nitrogen
CCM conventional combustion mode NVO negative valve overlap
CD combustion duration ON octane number
CDC conventional diesel combustion PCI premixed compression ignition
CI compression ignition PCCI premixed charge compression ignition
CN cetane number PFI port fuel injection
CO carbon monoxide PFR port fuel fraction
CO2 carbon dioxide PID physical ignition delay
cP centi Poise PM particulate matter
cSt centi Stroke PPLTC partially premixed low temperature combustion
CR compression ratio Pr or Rp premixed ratio
CRDI common rail direct injection PVO positive valve overlap
D diesel RCCI reactivity controlled compression ignition
DF dual fuel RI ringing intensity
DFI direct fuel injection rpm revolutions per minute
DI direct injection SCCI stratified charge compression ignition
DOHC double overhead cam SEC specific energy consumption
EGR exhaust gas recirculation SOC start of combustion
EOI end of injection SOHC single overhead cam
EVC exhaust valve close SOI start of injection
EVO exhaust valve open SoMI start of main injection
FE fuel energy SoPI start of pilot injection
FIP fuel injection pressure TCI turbocharge and intercooler
FFR fuel flow rate TDC top dead center
FFVA fully flexible valve actuation UHC unburned hydrocarbon
FSN filter smoke number VCR variable compression ratio
G gasoline VGT variable geometry turbocharger
GCI gasoline compression ignition VVT variable valve timing
HC hydrocarbon min main injection
HECC high efficiency clean combustion pin pilot injection
HHV higher heating value mf mass of fuel
HPDI high pressure direct injection φ equivalence ratio
HRF high reactivity fuel γ ratio of specific heats
HT heat transfer R gas constant
HVA hydraulic valve actuation λ excess air ratio/relative AFR
IP injection pressure G/D unmixed fuels
IC internal combustion G-D blend fuel
ICP intake charge pressure G21D79 21% gasoline +79% diesel blend
ICT intake charge temperature 30E70D 30% ethanol +70% diesel blend

low cetane number (CN) biofuels. Cetane number represents the igni-
tion delay (ID) period and low CN generally have prolonged ID period
[16]. Natural gas, liquid petroleum gas (LPG), hydrogen and methane
are among the most investigated gaseous alternative fuels. Out of these
natural gas and LPG have already used in commercial applications in
the transportation sector and more research units are trying to develop
the hydrogen-based engines. These gaseous fuels generally used in ga-
soline engines and reduce HC and CO emission by 30–35% and 20–30%
respectively. Reduction in carbon dioxide is also reported with gaseous
fuels in gasoline engines [17]. Gaseous fuels can be used in CI engines
as a partial substitute fuel to fossil diesel or biodiesel. This operating
condition probably reduces the stoichiometric combustion regions
thereby observed lower NOx emissions because of the lean-burn com-
bustion. Numerous research works are done and going on with the
gaseous-liquid fuels in CI engines to the motto of higher thermal effi-
ciency and lower exhaust emissions [18].
1.1. Conventional compression ignition engine
Compression ignition (CI) engines are highly thermal efficient for

2
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
the transportation sector, mainly due to their negligible throttling losses
and higher compression ratio (CR) [19]. The operating temperature for
the SI engine is lower than that of the diesel engine due to the lower CR
[20]. In conventional CI engines, the auto-ignition and oxidation re-
action highly depend on the spray disintegration and mixing actions.
Localized rich regions formed in the combustion chamber (CC) during
mixing controlled combustion period results in soot or PM formation.
There also exists a stoichiometric region which results in higher NOx
emissions due to the presence of higher temperature [21]. In the past
decades, extensive research has been carried out on the CI engine in
order to reduce NOx and PM emissions. Thermal efficiency, NOx and
PM emissions are strongly depending on the fuel oxidation temperature
and equivalence ratio. Higher temperature burns the soot particles re-
sulting in lower soot emissions and vice-versa [22,23]. Diesel engine-
out emissions are a mixture of aerosols, vapor, gases and it also contains
nitrogen, water vapor, oxides of sulfur, polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbons (PAH), etc. [24–26].
Various engine operating strategies such as exhaust gas recircula-
tion (EGR), charge boosting device and ultra-high pressure fuel injec-
tion systems have been developed in numerous ways to minimize the
engine-out emissions and improve the engine efficiency [27–30].
Moreover, after-treatment techniques such as diesel particulate filter,
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and diesel oxidation catalyst are
usually employed to satisfy the emission regulations. The after-treat-
ment techniques do not reduce all the exhaust emissions to the desired
level without any adverse effects, and such system components increase
back-pressure which leads to dropping in thermal efficiency [31,32].
After-treatment techniques are well designed for reducing soot and NOx
emissions but require additional fuel consumption [33,34]. Improving
the combustion process is a predominant way to produce higher output
power with minor exhaust emissions [35]. Homogeneous air-fuel mix-
ture can eliminate the soot formations, and lower equivalence ratio (φ)
reduces the formation of NOx emissions. In order to achieve the re-
quired emission levels and engine efficiency, researchers are directed
towards the low temperature combustion (LTC) [36,37]. In CCM en-
gine, there is a mixing controlled burning at stoichiometric mixture
(> 2000K) which produces higher oxides of nitrogen emissions and
rich regions of equivalence ratio (2–6) with combustion temperature of
1500–2000K might produce higher soot formations (Fig. 1 in appendix
file) [38–40]. In addition to different emission reduction strategies,
biofuels can be used in engines to adhere to the stringent emission
regulations. In order to combat fuel deficiencies and emissions, the use
of alternative fuels in IC engines could be considered as a potential
long-term solution [13].
1.2. Objectives of the review
The primary motivating factor for the author to come up with this
review paper is to discuss various aspects of the LTC mode engines. This
review article shines a light on fuel properties, operating strategies,
engine performance, combustion and emissions while the engine op-
erated in LTC mode. Indeed, there are existing reviews in the literature
summarizing the application of alternative fuels, operating strategies in
the LTC mode. For instance, Noor et al. [41] have systematically dis-
cussed the requirements of biodiesel properties for marine diesel engine
applications. Authors concluded that in the present scenario, the
average percentage of allowable biodiesel is not more than 20% with
fossil diesel. The engine performance characteristics with biodiesel or
with its blends were analyzed for different operating variables by Khan
et al. [42]. The dual-fuel engine performance characteristics were
analyzed by Imran et al. [43] for different kind of biodiesel-diesel
mixing techniques such as direct blend, fumigation and emulsion along
with fuel properties. It was concluded that BTE increased in emulsion
mode, NOx increased in blend mode, HC and CO reduced in blend mode
and PM decreases in all three modes. Singh et al. [44] investigated the
effects of the combustion chamber (CC) geometry modifications on CI
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
engines for biodiesel fuels. Toroidal CC (TCC) and Toroidal re-entrant
CC (TRCC) with biodiesel operations give better results than the omega
CC, shallow depth CC and open CC. TRCC provides better swirl and
turbulence motion which improves air-fuel mixing thereby reduced the
CO, HC and smoke emissions. Rosha et al. [45] literature studies
highlighted the use of gaseous fuels (particularly biogas, syngas and
hydrogen) with diesel/biodiesel in dual fuel CI engines. Effects of
higher-order alcohols with biodiesel blends on the engine combustion
analysis were reported by Ashok et al. [46]. Ramalingam et al. [47]
literature study concluded that 20% biodiesel and 80% diesel might
provide better engine output characteristics. Also, recommended that
catalytic converter probably used to reduce the NOx emissions while
using the biodiesel fuels. Ignition delay, combustion and emission
characteristics of biodiesel/diesel fuelled diesel engines were addressed
by Aldhaidhawi et al. [48]. After performing more intensive literature
reviews in the area of LTC mode engine, it was categorically observed
that no literature survey discussed or critically analyzed the various
aspects of engine operating conditions and parameter modifications in
advanced IC engine combustion modes.
2. Low temperature combustion
LTC mode engine works in lower combustion temperature com-
pared to that of conventional diesel mode engines. In LTC mode, the
operating temperature is reduced by either operating the engine with
high EGR or operating the engine with excess air ratio (λ) much higher
than 1 [49]. In stoichiometric condition, the fuel oxidized with air at
high temperature resulting in more NOx formations and it reduces the
available oxygen nearer to fuel spray periphery in conventional diesel
combustion (CDC) which leads to higher soot emissions [50,51].
Usually, high fuel injection pressure (IP) is required to overcome the
vaporization and mixing issues. However, prevention of wall impinge-
ments resulting from the more extended spray tip penetration (STP) is a
challenging task at higher injection pressure [52,53]. Various techni-
ques like reduced compression ratio, high level of cooled EGR, variable
valve timing control are used to lengthen the ignition delay (ID) thereby
allow more time for air and fuel mixing. The formation of dilute cy-
linder charge with homogeneity is difficult to achieve before the SOC
even with longer ignition delay period. High EGR rate is required to
reduce the peak cylinder gas temperature, but it has a narrow working
range before rising fuel consumption. However, high EGR rate dete-
riorates the combustion process and reduced engine thermal efficiency.
Achieving of LTC mode at higher engine loads has significant chal-
lenges in real-time conditions. Higher fraction of EGR supply may not
be feasible to use in fabrication engines and additional charge boost
device is required to compensate the depletion in oxygen supply and
maintain high BTE [54–56]. Higher in-cylinder pressure can be ob-
served when the engine operated with medium EGR and intake charge
boosters, and it becomes prominent in higher engine loads. The im-
proper mixing zone has different φ regions, which affects the com-
bustion process and it becomes more difficult while changing the en-
gine operating conditions [54]. Modern diesel engines are adopted with
dual fuel, multiple injection and negative valve overlapping strategies
for achieving the LTC, but it is expensive and complicated. These
strategies are mainly focused on promoting the premixed charge and
lower combustion temperature by overcoming the rich fuel regions
[57,58]. High swirl ratio with high fuel injection pressure improves the
air-fuel mixing and required rate of cooled EGR may be added to
achieve the required SOC phase. NOx emission can be reduced by 85%
and particulate matter emission is lowered by 95% in LTC mode com-
pared to that in CCM engine [53].
2.1. Methods of achieving the LTC
The LTC can be achieved by various modes like PPLTC, HCCI, PCCI,
RCCI, high-efficiency clean combustion (HECC) and stratified charge
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
compression ignition (SCCI). Generally, low temperature heat release
(LTHR) pattern is observed in all LTC modes followed by the main heat
release period without diffusion combustion phase [59,60]. In LTC, lean
and homogeneous air-fuel mixture lead to lower and uniform tem-
perature distribution throughout the cylinder with lower heat transfer
(HT) loss resulting in higher thermal efficiency [61–63]. LTC mode has
several benefits such as higher fuel economy and lower NOx and soot
emissions, but the commercial implementation of LTC mode in engines
have significant challenges including unburned HC emission, lower
operating range, unstable control in SOC, transient output response and
cycle to cycle variations [64,65]. LTC can be divided into three different
phases such as pre-combustion, combustion and post-combustion. The
first phase depends on charge flow characteristics and changes in spe-
cies condition; middle phase depends on chemical kinetic behavior and
the last phase is influenced by chemical and turbulent mixing condi-
tions [66,67].
2.1.1. Partially premixed LTC (PPLTC) mode
PPLTC is an intermediate combustion strategy between HCCI and
CCM which provides sufficiently longer ignition delay (ID) thereby
enhancing the air and fuel mixing. Generally, low cetane number fuel is
suitable for PPLTC mode. When low CN fuel is blended with diesel,
their low reactivity (high resistance to auto-ignition) lengthen the ID
period [68]. PPLTC can also be obtained by making longer ignition
delay through early or late injection, lower CR and moderate to high
charge dilution rates [69]. PPLTC mode produces lower smoke and NOx
emissions with better combustion controllability than the HCCI mode.
PPLTC strategy may be further divided into two subcategories based on
the combustion phasing and fuel IT. Few researchers have investigated
the early fuel injection PPLTC, i.e. fuel is injected in the middle of the
compression stroke [8,70]. In late injection PPLTC, fuel injection occurs
near TDC or early part of the expansion stroke. In the early injection
model, the gases into which the fuel injected is less dense and cooler
because of partial compression. For late injection model, the charge
becomes cooler during and after injection because of the expansion
process [12,58]. SFC may be higher for PPLTC mode compared to CCM
due to the incomplete fuel oxidation and non-optimal heat release
phase [71]. Typical light load emission behavior has been observed for
both early and late injection PPLTC modes for both heavy-duty and
light-duty engines. Besides, the increase in ID with EGR rate, the ad-
vanced fuel IT is generally required to avoid the deterioration in power
outputs. The non-oxidized fuel in the piston bowl and squish zones can
be considered as an auxiliary source for CO and HC emissions [61].
Gasoline PPLTC operation is approached differently to achieve the
lower NOx and soot emissions without EGR addition. This gasoline
PPLTC reduces the formation of HC and CO emissions by lowering the
residual products in cylinder [33]. Large portion of the premixed heat
release phase has been observed for longer ID period cases which leads
to higher cylinder gas pressure and noise level. On the other hand, if the
ID period is short, diffusion flame exists which leads to the similar state
of CCM engine [72].
2.1.2. Homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) combustion
The HCCI combustion is also called controlled auto-ignition com-
bustion. It has the potential to produce higher engine efficiency with
lower NOx emissions. In HCCI, the vaporized/injected fuel is well
mixed with air before start of combustion (SOC). HCCI combustion
process occurs under a lean mixture condition, so it produces lower
cylinder gas temperatures. HCCI mode engine operated in higher
thermal efficiency (50%) with lower soot emission than the CDC mode
for typical displacement volume [73,74]. The advantage of HCCI
combustion is spontaneous or multi-site combustion throughout the
cylinder with no significant evidence of flame propagation [75]. Knock
occurs in HCCI combustion because of the unexpected auto-ignition
point. In HCCI engines, the in-cylinder pressure will generate high
amplitude oscillations and the oscillation frequency is relatively high
4
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
during the knock [76,77]. Port fuel injection, multiple fuel injection,
early direct injection, narrow-angle injection, compound combustion
technology, VVT, variable inlet temperature, internal and external EGR
are used to control the HCCI combustion. Biofuel blends can be used in
HCCI mode with appropriate CR and working circumstances; it has
more potential to control the combustion phasing [78]. Some HCCI
mode using internal EGR strategy by negative valve overlapping for
effective combustion control without much modification on the fabri-
cation engines. Spark assisted HCCI engine uses a spark plug for ef-
fective timing control over the combustion phasing [79]. Combustion
noise level, ringing intensity (RI) and pressure rise rate are the sig-
nificant in-cylinder pressure based metrics which have been used as
combustion phenomena in HCCI mode. In real-time combustion con-
trol, RI is preferred to detect the combustion noise level with the re-
quired cylinder gas pressure [80,81]. HCCI engine is operated at high
CR to attain the auto-ignition temperature of the fuel that considerably
enhances the thermal efficiency. It can be operated with low to high
octane number fuels, hence, is called as flexible fuel engine. A small ICT
change (5–10 °C) could produce a higher in-cylinder gas temperature in
HCCI combustion. HCCI engines CR varying from 10:1 to 28:1 for n-
heptane to iso-octane fuels and intake temperature varies from 303 K to
523 K [82,83]. HCCI engines can be operated with non-fossil based
fuels like ethanol, n-butanol and methane. Using of alcohols in the in-
ternal combustion engine is one of the ways to meet the stringent
emission regulations. Alcohol fuels provide faster and earliest burning
and enhance the oxidation by oxygen enrichment [78]. The power
output of HCCI is controlled by the fuel input and maintaining
equivalence ratio of ≤1. The combustion process of HCCI is kinetically
controlled; therefore, it has a significant challenge in engine applica-
tions. HCCI mode engine works in higher loads with high ON fuels, but
it struggles to operate in low engine loads due to the misfire [84,85].
2.1.3. Premixed charge compression ignition (PCCI)combustion
PCCI combustion can be achieved by lengthening the time period
between the SOI and SOC thereby enhancing the air-fuel mixture before
the SOC [87]. PCCI mode engine can be operated stably in lean air-fuel
ratio (AFR) like 34:1 and can operate in too lean AFR of 80:1 when the
ICT maintained at around 170 °C [11,86]. PCCI mode works under lean-
burn and it has higher CR compared to the conventional SI engine. PCCI
combustion starts after the end of fuel injection; it is primarily governed
by chemical kinetics and not by the diffusive mixing rate like CCM
engine. Therefore, combustion and injection are not overlapped and no
direct control over the combustion is possible [57]. Single-stage early
DI fuel has been employed to achieve PCCI combustion, but too earlier
DI leads to wall impingements resulting in incomplete combustion. To
avoid such issues, the fuel injection is carried out in multiple or split
injection mode. A large amount of EGR is employed to control the ID
period and in-cylinder gas temperature in the PCCI combustion [88,89].
PCCI combustion is better than the HCCI combustion because of the
controlled combustion resulting from the partially premixed charge (Pr)
and expected auto-ignition region. Combustion phasing of the PCCI
mode is controlled by operating parameters (ICT, EGR, IT, etc.); though
chemical kinetics still play a significant role. In PCCI mode, fuel is
supplied into the cylinder in three ways, such as port fuel, advanced
direct and late direct injection [90]. PCCI mode uses 70° narrow spray
angle injector to keep the fuel spray within the combustion chamber
and avoids the wall wetting issues [91,92]. To prevent misfire, HC and
CO formations; CR of PCCI mode engine should be kept in the same
level of CCM. PCCI combustion with diesel fuel has some troubles due
to the low volatility and high flammability, including the formation of
homogeneous charge, combustion control, limited working range, wall
impingement and UHC emissions [93]. Spark assisted PCCI (SAPCCI)
model could be used for lower volatile fuels like kerosene, biofuels and
diesel. SAPCCI combustion has some benefits; it utilizes low quality and
CN fuels in IC engines relatively with better engine characteristics [94].
In PCCI-DI (dual) mode, one fuel is injected at intake port to form a
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
partial homogeneous mixture and the same or another fuel directly
injected into the cylinder like CCM injection. The PCCI-DI combustion
is majorly depending upon the pilot (DI) fuel quantity because it de-
termines the ID period and combustion rate [88,95]. In premixed
compression ignition low temperature combustion (PCI-LTC), single
fuel or dual fuel usually injected in PFI mode to form proper air and fuel
mixture. Single fuel PCI-LTC has a lower combustion temperature, and
lean AFR leads to higher cycle-to-cycle variation problems. The dual
fuel premixed combustion used for achieving a lower NOx and soot
emissions with higher indicated thermal efficiency (60%) [96–99].
2.1.4. Reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI)
In RCCI, fuels with different reactivity are injected at planned in-
tervals thereby maintaining the expected reactivity in the cylinder for
obtaining the desired combustion phasing and magnitude [100]. RCCI
mode uses in-cylinder fuel mixing with dissimilar reactivity, and nu-
merous injection patterns to control the combustion phase, combustion
duration and magnitude of combustion. Low reactivity fuel (LRF) is
injected in PFI mode to create a uniform mixture of air, fuel and
combustion residuals. High reactivity fuel (HRF) is directly injected into
the cylinder by single or multiple injection strategies before the onset of
premixed charge combustion reactions [101]. RCCI combustion can
operate over a wide range of engine loads with lower NOx emissions,
ringing intensity and acceptable pressure rise. RCCI mode can meet the
PM and NOx emissions regulation limits without after-treatments and
produces higher thermal efficiency (56%) [100,101]. Sometimes, RCCI
and pilot dual fuel combustion are termed as dual fuel premixed charge
compression ignition (DF-PCCI) combustion and it can able to function
in high loads. At higher engine speed and load, the utilization of RCCI
mode has barrier; i.e. the pressure rise rate becomes considerably high
which may damage the engine. RCCI mode engines operated in full
engine load and speed ranges if the pressure rise rate is below the cri-
tical value (RI:5MW/m2) [102,103]. Generally, the diesel engine is
employed for RCCI mode research studies along with high pressure
common rail fuel injection systems. Reactivity can be categorized into
two types: one is global reactivity and another one is reactivity gra-
dient. First one is determined by the fuel type and its amount injected
into the cylinder. The second one depends on the injection strategy, like
early or late injection and lower or higher cetane number fuels
[104,105]. Lower EGR rate has been introduced into the engine to
obtain the desired combustion phasing at higher speed and load [52].
RCCI mode is limited to half of the engine loads at 14.4:1 CR, after this
range the NOx and soot trade-off scenario could be changed [106,107].
HECC and SCCI models have been achieved with the utilization of high
volatile fuels (alcohols) to form homogeneous charge before the SOC.
SCCI engine can be operated with lean mixture or high EGR in partial
loads thereby reducing the fuel consumption and NOx emissions
[109–111].
2.2. Fuel requirements in LTC engines
The quality of fuel is influenced by numerous factors like the
composition of organic molecules (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc.),
physical properties (density, viscosity, etc.), thermal properties
(heating value, enthalpy of evaporation and auto-ignition temperature)
and ignition properties (octane number, cetane number).
2.2.1. Density
Fuel spray pattern and spray tip penetration (STP) depends on the
fuel density. Higher density fuel leads to a narrow spray pattern and
longer STP due to the higher droplet's momentum and vice-versa [96]
[112]. Generally, alcohols are having a lower density (650–800kg/m3 ),
straight plant oil/processed plant oil having a higher density
(850–1000 kg/m3), and fossil fuels densities lie between alcohols and
biodiesels (750–860 kg/m3 ). For the same volume of fuel injection, the
mass of fuel supply is higher for higher density fuels compared to that of
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
lower density fuels [113,114].
2.2.2. Boiling point
Boiling point could measure the overall volatility of the substance.
Typically, lower boiling point substance has higher overall volatility
and vice-versa. Standard boiling point depends on the nature of the
bonding structure between the molecules [115]. Bio-alcohols have
lower boiling points and plant oils possess higher boiling points. Dis-
tillation curve shows the liquid to vapor transformation with respect to
the temperature (Fig. 2 in appendix file). The more number of electrons
and nucleus create more van der Waals attractive force for large mo-
lecules resulting in higher boiling point. Therefore, the volatility of
alcohols is higher compared to that of fossil fuels and biodiesels. Higher
volatility fuels are suitable for PFI because it evaporates in lower
temperature and produces homogeneous air-fuel mixture [116–118].
2.2.3. Calorific value
Calorific value (CV) of the fuel is precisely defined as the amount of
energy released during the oxidation of the unit value of a fuel. For IC
engines, more CV fuel is desirable i.e. fuel possesses higher energy per
unit volume/mass [119]. More amount of lower energy fuel is supplied
to the engine to produce an equivalent power compared to the higher
energy fuels. Fuel supply period is limited in IC engines; therefore, more
prolonged fuel injection is not recommended for DI fuel admission.
Generally, lower calorific value fuels supplied in PFI mode; otherwise, it
can be supplied in direct injection mode along with higher CV fuel as a
blend [120,121].
2.2.4. Latent heat (LH) of vaporization
The amount of thermal energy added to a liquid substance to
transform into a vapor/gas or vice-versa is termed as LH of vaporiza-
tion. Fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel are having a lower LH of
vaporization (approximately 300 kJ/kg) as compared to that of biofuels
(600–1000 kJ/kg). Direct injection engines, fuel is supplied at the end
of compression stroke as an atomized form. These fuel molecules absorb
the thermal energy from the air which is surrounded by the droplets;
finally, it comes to the auto-ignition temperature. Meanwhile, the cy-
linder charge temperature is slightly decreased and it becomes higher
for higher LH of vaporization fuels [25,75]. Therefore, higher LH of
vaporization fuels requires higher thermal energy; therefore, it can be
used only after some engine modifications. External heating devices,
higher CR, thermal insulations, fuel blends and ignition devices are
adapted to utilize the fuels those having a higher LH of vaporization
[26].
2.2.5. Kinematic viscosity
Viscosity plays a vital role in spray penetration and atomization.
Alcohol fuels have lower viscosity compared to that of fossil fuels.
Lower viscosity fuel leads to form finer fuel droplets which make fuel
injection system easy to discharge the fuel into the cylinder [115]. It
gives better spray formation and atomization resulting in superior air
and fuel mixture. Biodiesel and unprocessed plant oils possess compli-
cated chemical structure and molecular mass; the kinematic viscosity of
biofuels are 10–15 times higher compared to that of fossil fuels [122].
Preheating, trans-esterification, blending and thermal cracking methods
are used to reduce the fuel viscosity to the required level for fuel in-
jection. As per ASTM D445 standards, the viscosity value lies 1.9–6
mm2/s for direct fuel injection in CI engines [21].
2.2.6. Octane number (ON) and cetane number (CN)
Higher ON fuels can be used in higher CR engines without deto-
nation or knocking. They have higher self-ignition temperature, and the
combustion is initiated by the aid of an external ignition source. ON has
been mentioned by either motor octane number (MON) or research
octane number (RON). Super gasoline has around 95–98 RON and al-
cohols have more than the gasoline RON. Hence, alcohols can be used
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
in higher CR engines otherwise strong ignition source is essential to
initiate the combustion process at lower CR. Fossil diesel has around
15–25 RON which cannot be used in SI engines and it does not form
proper air-fuel formation which is required for propagation of flame
front that is initiated by the spark plug [94]. CN governs the time period
between SOI and SOC. Lower CN indicates the ability of the fuel to
auto-ignite patiently after being injected into the cylinder. Hence, lower
CN resulting in knocking, higher exhaust emissions and excessive
carbon deposits in engines due to incomplete combustion [123]. Al-
cohol-based fuels have lower CN as compared to fossil diesel, and it
cannot be used in CI engines as a substitute fuel. CN of biodiesels in-
creases with molecular chain length and degree of saturation of fatty
acids. Renewable diesel and diethyl ether have superior cetane number
which is used in CI engines as a substitute fuel and ignition enhancer
[21,124].
2.2.7. Oxygen, carbon and hydrogen
The energy content in hydrogen molecule is higher than the carbon
molecule. Aromatic compound fuels have lower hydrogen atoms and
complicated molecular structures lead to diminished energy released
during the oxidation. Increase the number of carbon and hydrogen
atoms as well as an increase in the ratio of these elements relative to the
oxygen atom increased the calorific value of the fuel [100]. Fossil fuels
have more carbon and hydrogen molecules compared to renewable
fuels and renewable fuels have oxygen molecule which slightly reduces
the calorific value of the fuel. However, oxygenated fuels enhance the
combustion process by providing the oxygen molecule during the fuel
oxidation. Ethanol and methanol are having a higher composition of
oxygen molecules which reduced its heating value approximately to
half of the fossil fuels [53,81]. Oxygenated fuels can be used efficiently
in lower equivalence ratio as compared to fossil fuels. This type of fuel
reduced the amount of carbon emissions resulting from the lower
amount of the carbon molecule [60].
2.2.8. Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio
Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio (SAFR) or theoretical air/fuel ratio is
the amount of air required for complete combustion of fuel which is
calculated from the equation of stoichiometry of air/fuel reaction. The
equivalence ratio (φ) is widely used to define the air/fuel quality in
engines. Generally, fuel/air equivalence ratio is denoted by Greek
symbol φ and air/fuel equivalence ratio is denoted by λ is a ratio be-
tween the actual to stoichiometry AFR in the given mixture. SAFR for
fossil fuels lies around 15:1 which is less than 10:1 for alcohol-based
fuels and it becomes higher for gaseous hydrogen fuel (30:1) [53].
Hence, fossil and hydrogen fuels need more oxygen to achieve complete
combustion compared to that of alcohol fuels. The engine can be op-
erated with higher charge dilutions for alcohol/biofuels based fuels/
blends because it contains oxygen element in its chemical structure
which enhances the combustion process [18,80].
2.2.9. Auto-ignition temperature
This temperature is required to supply the dynamic energy needed
for SOC. Auto-ignition temperature of the fuel depends on several fac-
tors like partial pressure of oxygen, altitude, humidity and amount of
time required for ignition [124]. Increasing molecular mass and chain
length of fuel decreases the auto-ignition temperature. Straight chain
hydrocarbon fuels have a lower auto-ignition temperature compared to
that of branched-chain hydrocarbons. The auto-ignition temperature
for fossil diesel lies in the range of 140–220 °C, and the engine CR from
14:1 to 22:1 produces enough in-cylinder air temperature to initiate the
combustion process [55]. Gasoline and alcohols have higher auto-ig-
nition temperature which cannot be achieved by normal IC engines CR.
Hence, the external ignition source is employed in order to initiate the
combustion process. Methane, ethane and propane have higher auto-
ignition temperature which is required a high CR (more than 30:1) to
initiate the fuel oxidation without any external ignition source
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
[125,126].
2.3. Charge preparation methods
In order to accomplish the stringent emission norms and fuel
economy, the charge preparation is a vital role in internal combustion
engines. The fuel supply in LTC mode is generally categorized to ex-
ternal charge preparation and internal charge preparation. Different
charge preparation methods provide a different degree of mixture
homogeneity resulting from various range of time available for the
mixing of air and fuel. Typically, external charge preparation is used for
providing a better air-fuel mixture before the SOC. The external charge
preparation also depends upon the volatility of fuels. Gasoline and al-
cohol have lower boiling point temperatures which can be supplied
through intake manifold by mixing device [65]. Fuel injector is often
used for obtaining the air-fuel mixture in the intake manifold section.
Generally, one or two fuel injectors placed in the intake manifold and
supplied the desired quantity of fuel to the engine. The number of fuel
injector depends on the number of cylinders, mass and duration of in-
jection, and the fuel supply is controlled by the electronic control unit
(ECU) [20].
The fuel vaporizer system is used for changing the liquid phase of
fuel into vapor. Vaporizer unit containing a heating element, and heat
energy is transferred to the fuel when it contacts with the heating
element [20]. Fuel is injected with the help of fuel injector on the re-
gion which is maintained above the boiling temperature of the fuel.
Thus, the fuel vapors are obtained. Typically, the port fuel injector is
placed in the vaporizer unit, and ECU controls it. Fuel vaporizer is well
ahead of intake port such a way that fuel vapors have adequate time to
mix with air before entering the engine cylinder [80]. At lower engine
operating temperature, PFI type fuel injector performing well relatively
with inexpensive. This type of fuel injection is suitable for volatile fuels
and the injection pressure is usually in the range of 3–5 bar [140,141].
In PFI, some fuels may hit the intake port or valve surfaces, while some
others float in the intake port and some portion of this fuel evaporated
before entering to the cylinder. Type of fuel, amount of fuel supply and
duration of fuel injection are influences the AFR formation. In case of
inadequate time for complete evaporation or lower temperature of in-
take port/valve, a portion of fuel as liquid enter into the cylinder re-
sulting in incomplete combustion [142]. Numerous studies used the PFI
external charge preparation in HCCI and RCCI mode engines using
volatile and non-volatile fuels [23]. Early and late injections are two
important methods of indirect fuel injection (DFI) model. Wall im-
pingement is one of the problems associated with the direct injection
strategy and could be avoided by controlling the spray tip penetration.
The in-cylinder charge preparation strategy removes the fuel con-
densation issue in the intake system, and it removes difficulties asso-
ciated with the PFI system [127]. The typical multi-jet fuel injection
model is shown in Fig. 3 (in appendix file).
In RCCI mode, typically the start of injection (SOI) is not earlier
than 70° crank angle (CA) before top dead center (bTDC) [110].
However, LTC mode like gasoline compression ignition (GCI) engine
uses early direct injection approach. Some GCI mode uses the early DI
timing ranging from 40° to 324° bTDC with volatile fuels to form a
better air-fuel mixture. PFI energized while the intake valve is likely to
open and fuel experiences the faster breakup, vaporization and mixing
with the incoming air charge [146–148]. In some models, a small
amount of fuel is injected into the cylinder short time before the main
injection event is termed as pre-injection. Some models, the pre-injec-
tion occurs relatively long time before the main injection as a pilot
injection. Entire fuel is also supplied into the cylinder in the early in-
jection model to form the fuel stratification. Earlier start of injection
(90° bTDC) provides further lean charge at the diagnostic region of 4–8°
crank angle after top dead center (aTDC) [128,129].
Main injection event provides a bulk fuel to the engine cylinder. In
CI engine, fuel is supplied in DI mode which is 30–15° before top dead
 Table 1
Specifications of the test engines used in literature reviewed articles.
Ref. No Engine model Number of Bore Stroke Speed (rpm) CR length Compression ratio Cooling Displacement volume Swirl ratio LTC mode
cylinders (mm) (mm) (mm) system (cc)

[138] Ricardo E6/MS, pre-CC, divided CC-type 1 76.22 110 3000 17.2:1 water 507 – RCCI
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

[139] 4S 1 105 125 1500 210 16:01 water 1081 – RCCI

[140] VVT 1 123 152 1200 225 14:01 water 1806 – RCCI
[142] 4S 1 75 84.5 1200 – 17.8:1 water 373.3 – RCCI
[143] E6/MS 1 76.2 110 800 – 17.2:1 water 507 – RCCI
[144] 4S 1 87.5 110 1500 – 17:01 Air – – RCCI
[145] ω type CC 4 92 94 3600 – 18.5:1 water 2498 – RCCI
[146] 4DW81–23D 4 85 110 1500 – 17:01 Water 2400 – RCCI
[148] SCOTE 1 (6) 137.2 165.2 1300 261.6 16:01 – 2440 RCCI
[149,150] YC6J220–30 1(6) 105 125 2500 210 16:01 water 6500 1.6 RCCI
[151] Wide/shallow bowl geometry 1 82 90.4 1500 145.5 17.3:1 – 477 1.6 RCCI
[152] Waukesha 1 82.55 114.3 – 16.9:1 – 612 – RCCI
[154] YC6J Guangxi Yuchai, ω chamber 1(6) 105 125 1500 – 16:01 water 1080 – RCCI
[155] 4S, camless HVA 1 123 152 1200 – 14.4:1 1806 – RCCI
[156] Ricardo E6, VCR 1 76.2 110 3000 – 17:01 – 507 – RCCI
[157,158] 3401E SCOTE 1 137.2 165.1 1300 – 16:01 – 2440 – RCCI
[159] 4S diesel engine 1 70 50 3000 – 19.9:1 – 2110 – RCCI
[160] 4S, supercharging 1(6) 105 125 2500 – 16:01 – 1081.8 – RCCI
[161] Heavy duty, turbocharged 6 – – – –– 14:01 – – RCCI
[162] 4S, DOHC 4 valves 1 75 84.5 1200 – 17.8:1 – 373.3 – RCCI
[164] Modified diesel engine 1 113 130 – – 18:01 – 1325 – RCCI
[165] CT2100Q, HCCI modified 1(2) 100 105 1200 – 17:01 – 824.7 – RCCI
[166,182,185] 3401E SCOTE 1 137.2 165.1 1300 261.6 14.88:1 – 2440 0.7 RCCI
[167] Z19DTH 4 82 90.4 – – 15.3:1 – 1990 – RCCI

7
[168] Caterpillar C15 137.2 171 1300 270.6 16.9:1 – 2440 – RCCI
[169,170,178] 3401E SCOTE 1 137.2 165.1 1300 261.6 16.1:1 – 2440 – RCCI
[171] TAF 1 1 87.5 110 1500 – 17.5:1 Air cooled 662 – RCCI
[172] 2007 GM 4 82 90.4 2300 – – – 1900 – RCCI
[173] Caterpillar C15 6 137 171 1300 – 12:01 – 1500 – RCCI
[174] 4S, diesel engine – 105 115 1700 – 18:01 – 996 – RCCI
[175] Caterpillar C15 1 137 171 1300 – 16.9:1 – 2440 – RCCI
[176] GM 2.0L 4 86 86 145.5 9.2:1 – 1998 – RCCI
[177] WEICHAI WP10 6 126 130 1200–1600 – 17:01 – 9726 – RCCI
[179] Greaves GL–400 1 86 63 3600 – 18:01 – 395 – RCCI
[180,181] GM 1.9L EURO IV 4 82 90.4 1500 – 17.5:1 – 1900 – RCCI
[183] GM 1.9L EURO IV 4 82 90.4 2000 –– 16.5:1 – 1910 – RCCI
[184] OM–355 1 128 150 2200 – 16.1:1 – 1158 – RCCI
[186] GM 2007 4 82 90.4 – 15:01 – 1900 – RCCI
[187] CFR 1 82.55 600 254 4:1–16:1 – – – RCCI
[188,189] GM Z19DTH 4 82 90.4 1000–3500 – 15:01 – 1900 – RCCI
[190] 4S, diesel engine 1 130 160 1300 250 – – 0.7 RCCI
[191] GM 1.9L diesel engine 1(4) 82 90.4 1500 – 17.3:1 – 477 1.5 RCCI
[192] SCOTE 4S 1 137.2 165.1 1300 211.6 14.9:1 – 2440 0.7 RCCI
[232] 4S, research engine 1 95 105 1200 – 16.5:1 Air 744 – RCCI
[236] 4S light duty, Re–entrant bowl piston engine 1 82 90.4 1200–4000 – 17.1:1 – 1900 1.4 RCCI
[237] 4S, light duty, FARYMANN 18W 1 82 55 1800 95.5 18.2:1 – 290 – RCCI
[240] 4S, Great wall motor, GW4D20 4 83.1 92 1800 – 16.7:1 – 1966 – RCCI
[241] Puma– Ford 1(4) 86 86 1500 – 18.2:1 – 1998 – RCCI
[243,245] High speed DI engine, Wide/shallow bowl 1 82 90.4 1900 145.4 17.3:1 – 477 1.5 RCCI
geometry
[244] 4S, dual fuel, GW4D20 engine 1 83.1 92 1400 – 16.7:1 – 500 1.7 RCCI
[249] 4S, dual fuel GW4D20 engine 1 93.1 92 1600 – 16.7:1 – – – RCCI
[302] 4S, DI, NWK22 diesel engine 4 85 100 1500 – 17:01 Water 2400 – RCCI
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
 Table 1 (continued)

Ref. No Engine model Number of Bore Stroke Speed (rpm) CR length Compression ratio Cooling Displacement volume Swirl ratio LTC mode
cylinders (mm) (mm) (mm) system (cc)

[309] 4S modified engine 4 86 86 800–2200 145.5 9.2:1 – – – RCCI

[312] 4S, NA DI modified engine 1 82 85 1800 95.55 16.5:1 Water 290 – RCCI
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

[316] 4S, medium duty, common rail diesel engine 1 112 115 1500 – 16:01 Water 1132 – RCCI
[320] 4S, modified engine 1 88 132 1200–2100 – – – – – RCCI
[322] 4S, high speed DI, open crater type 1 82 90.4 2000 145 16:01 – 477 – RCCI
combustion bowl diesel engine
[324] 4S, medium duty, bathtub bowl shape piston 6 110 135 1800 – 12.75:1 Liquid 7700 – RCCI
[325] 4S, VW TDI, VGT CRDI engine 4 79.5 95.5 1300–2000 – 17:01 – – – RCCI
[326] 4S, TDI diesel engine 4 79.5 95.5 – 17:01 – – – RCCI
[327] 4S, light duty, re–entrant bowl piston, DI 1 82 90.4 2000–3000 – 17:01 – 477 1.4 RCCI
engine
[329] 4S, Volvo D3 engine 6 131 158 1500 – 16:01 – 2026 – RCCI
[159] 4S, Re–entrant type bowl 1 82 90.4 2000 – 16:01 – 4770 – PCCI
[193] 4S, CRDE 2 83 84 1500 – 18.5:1 – 900 – PCCI
[194] 4S, diesel engine – 85 96 900 – 15.2:1 – 2200 2–2.8 PCCI
[195] 4S, DF–PCI engine 1 100 125 1400 202 17.4:1 – 987 – PCCI
[196] 4S, EURO V, Re–entrant bowl piston 1 77.2 84.5 1500 140 14:01 – 395 – PCCI
[197] High speed DI EURO IV engine 1 83 92 1500 145.8 15.5:1 – 497 – PCCI
[198,217] GL–400, 4S, high speed modified PCCI–DI 1 86 63 2000 – 18:01 Air 395 – PCCI
engine
[199] Light duty EURO–IV DI engine 4 75 88.3 1500 – 18:01 – 1600 – PCCI
[200] 4S, swirl control CRDI engine 4 83 92 – – 2000 – PCCI
[201] AVL/5402 CRDI 1 85 90 4200 – 17.5:1 – 510.7 – PCCI
[203] 4S, CRDI, turbocharged engine 1 93 102 1800 – 17.2:1 – 277.1 – PCCI
[207,209] 4S, NA, DI modified engine 2 105 120 2100 – 17:01 – 2078 – PCCI

8
[208] 4S, EURO–IV turbocharged engine 4 75 88.3 1500 – 18:01 – – – PCCI
[210] 4S, modified engine 1 82 90 1500 – 16.5:1 – 522 – PCCI
[211] 4S, NA DI modified engine 2 105 120 1700 – 17:01 – 2078 PCCI
[212] High speed DI modified, open crater type 1 86 86 800–4000 – 16:01 – – 1.5 PCCI
piston bowl engine
[213] AVL/5402 high speed DI modified engine, 1 85 90 1500 – 17.5:1 – 510.7 – PCCI
DOHC cam follower
[214] High speed light duty modified PCCI engine, 1 86 86 2400 – 16:01 – – – PCCI
open crate piston bowl
[215,229] Heavy duty NA CRDI modified engine 1 100 125 1400 202 17.4:1 – 987 – PCCI
[216] Euro VI 16V, CRDI turbocharged engine 4 95.8 104 1800 158 17.5:1 – 2998 – PCCI
[218] 4S, NA, modified PCCI engine 1 87.5 110 1500 – 17:01 Air 825 – PCCI
[219] 4S, modified engine 4 112 135 –– – 17.5:1 – – 1.67 PCCI
[220] 4S, Euro V modified engine 4 83 90.4 – – 16.3:1 – 1956 – PCCI
[221] 4S, AVL/5402 research engine, DOHC cam 1 85 90 4200 – 17.5:1 Water 510.7 PCCI
follower
[222] 4S diesel engine 4 82 90.4 – 17.5:1 – 1910 2.5 PCCI
[223] 4S EURO–6 modified engine, 1 77.2 84.5 1500 140 16:01 – 397.7 – PCCI
[224] Kirloskar 2300V3 modified engine 2 87.5 110 1500 – 15.5:1 water 1320 – PCCI
[225] 4S DI PCCI engine, Derby hat combustion 1 96 108 1000 – 13:01 Water 781.7 – PCCI
chamber
[226] 4S, GM/suzu CRDI engine 1(4) 79 86 1500 160 15:01 Water 425 – PCCI
[227] 4S, modified engine 1 87.5 110 1500 – 17.5:1 – 663 – PCCI
[228] 4S, Kirloskar TAF1 1 87.5 110 1500 – 17.5:1 Air 661.5 – PCCI
[229] 4S, GM 1.9L light duty diesel engine 4 82 90.4 2000 145.5 16.7:1 – 477/cylinder 2.2 PCCI
[230] 4S, supercharged engine 1 112 115 1400 – 16:01 Water 1132 – PCCI
[233] 4S, modified engine 4 86 86 1500 – 18.2 Water 1998 1.7 PCCI
[233] 4S, CRDI diesel engine 4 83.1 92 – 16.7:1 Water 1966 1.5 PCCI
[239] BUMP combustion bowl 6 126 155 1600 – 17:01 Water – – PCCI
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
 Table 1 (continued)

Ref. No Engine model Number of Bore Stroke Speed (rpm) CR length Compression ratio Cooling Displacement volume Swirl ratio LTC mode
cylinders (mm) (mm) (mm) system (cc)

[275] 4S, CRDI, TCI engine 1 82 90.4 – 145 15:01 – – – PCCI

[276] 4S modified engine 1 96 108 1000 13:01 Water 781.7 – PCCI
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

[277] 4S, light duty, GM 1.9L engine 4 82 90.4 2000 145.5 16.7:1 Water 1900 2.2 PCCI
[286] 4S DI 1 83 92 1500 145.8 15.5:1 – 497 – PCCI
[300] 4S, CRDI, heavy duty modified engine 1 100 125 1400 – 17.4:1 – 981 – PCCI
[303] 4S, turbocharged, Daimler CRDI engine 1 88 88.34 1200 – 15.88:1 – 537 – PCCI
[308] 4S, DI NA engine 1 112 115 800 – 16:01 Water – – PCCI
[163] Kirloskar SV1, diesel engine 1 87.5 110 1800 – 17.5:1 Water 661 – HCCI
[250] VVT valvetronic 4 95 86 1500 – 9.2:1 – 2400 – HCCI
[251] Bathtub CC geometry 1 92 96 960 – 17.7:1 – 638 – HCCI
[252] PSA DW10 1 85 88 1000 145 14.9:1 – – HCCI
[253] 4S, modified diesel engine 1 85 88 1500 145 16:01 – 499 – HCCI
[254] FFVA, VVT 1 86 86 145.5 11:01 – 499 – HCCI
[256] 4S, NA diesel engine 1 86 86 175 12.5:1 – – – HCCI
[257] 4S, modified diesel engine 1 87.5 100 150 17.5:1 Air 1583 – HCCI
[259] 4S, 4.4 kW diesel engine 1 87.5 110 1500 – 17.5 Air 661 – HCCI
[260] 4S, modified diesel engine 3.5 kW 1 87.5 110 1500 – 16:01 Water 553 – HCCI
[263] Yanmar L70AE 1 78 62 1350–1750 – 19.5:1 Air 296 – HCCI
[268] PSA DW10 1(4) 85 88 1500 145 16:01 – – HCCI
[270] 4S, modified diesel engine 1 87 110 1500 – 17.5:1 Air – – HCCI
[271] Kirloskar TV1, TRCC 1 87.5 110 1500 – 17.5:1 Water – – HCCI
[272] 4S modified diesel engine 1 98 105 – – 18.5:1 – 782 – HCCI
[273] 4S, Indec/PH 2, bowl shaped chamber 2 87.3 110 1500 – 16.5:1 Air 1318 – HCCI
[279] 4S, General motor light duty engine 4 86 86 – – 13:01 – 1998 – HCCI
[288] 4S, VVT 1 86 86 1500 10.66:1 – – – HCCI

9
[289] 4S 1 86 94.6 2000 152.2 12.5:1 – – – HCCI
[292] ERL–3/IITK, (Kirloskar DA16) 1 95 110 1500 – 16.5:1 – 779 – HCCI
[308] 4S, modified engine 4 86 86 800–1600 145.5 9.2:1 – – – HCCI
[246] 4S, Dongfeng Motor mfg., modified engine 6 123 156 1000 – 17.3:1 – 1850 1.85 LTC
[247] 4S, medium duty, CRDI diesel engine 4 106 127 1400 – 16.57:1 – 4500 – LTC
[262] Research engine, chamfered bowl piston 1 (6) 100 125 1600 – 17.4:1 water 984 1.5 LTC
[264] VMR 425DOHC common rail VGT engine 4 92 94 1500 – 17.5:1 water 2499 – LTC
[265] Re–entrant bowl chamber 3 96 122 2100 – 17.3:1 Water 2647 – LTC
[266] 4S, CRDI, ω type CC 1 135 150 1500 – 14.8:1 Water 2147 – LTC
[267] 4S, HSDI diesel engine 1 – – 2250 – 15:01 – 399 – LTC
[285] AVL 5402, Re–entrant bowl piston 1 85 90 1600 17.1:1 Water 511 1.78 LTC
[287] Ford Dura Torq–Puma 4 86 86 18.2:1 – 1998 – LTC
[290] ECU, variable geometry turbocharger 4 106 127 1400 – 16.57:1 – 4500 – LTC
[293,294] AVL 5402, re–entrant bowl piston, 1 85 90 1500 – 17:01 – 510 1.78 LTC
[2795] 4S, Hyundai mfg., SOHC, modified engine 1(4) 83 92 1200 – 19.5:1 – 498 – LTC
[297] 4S, Ford Duratorq puma 1(4) 86 86 1300 160 18.2:1 – 1998 – LTC
[297] Yanmar NFD–170 1 102 105 1300 165 13.1:1 – 857 – LTC
[298] 4S, CRDI, TCI, bowl piston 1 105 125 1400 210 16:01 Water 1080 – LTC
[299] 4S, BUMP combustion bowl 1 126 155 1600 – 17:01 – – 1.2 LTC
[301] 4S, VGT, CRDI light duty diesel engine 4 85 88.1 1600 – 16.5:1 – 1990 – LTC
[307] 4S, CRDI, research engine, ω type CC 4 135 150 1500 – 14.8:1 – 2147 – LTC
[313] 4S, heavy duty diesel engine 1 125 100 1400 202 17.4:1 Water 982 1.8 LTC
[314] 4S, CRDI, bowl–in piston, VGT, EGR engine 4 82 90.4 1500 – 17.5:1 Water 1900 – LTC
[317] 4S, turbocharger research engine 1(4) 83.1 92 1600 145.8 16.7:1 – 500 1.7 LTC
[321] 4S, CRDI diesel engine 4 110 125 1500 – 17.5:1 – 4750 – LTC
[323] 4S, CRDI, heavy duty modified diesel engine 1 100 125 1200 – 17.4:1 – 981 – LTC
[328] 4S, EURO IV, GM 1.9l light duty diesel 4 82 90.4 1000 145.5 17.8:1 – 1900 – LTC
engine
[330,331] 4S, VVA, dual fuel, Toroidal piston, engine 1 129 155 1200 256 16.8:1 – 2026 – LTC
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
 Table 1 (continued)

Ref. No Engine model Number of Bore Stroke Speed (rpm) CR length Compression ratio Cooling Displacement volume Swirl ratio LTC mode
cylinders (mm) (mm) (mm) system (cc)

[318] 4S, CRDI, modified diesel engine 1(6) 130 158 1200 – 15.7:1 Water 12,600 – DI–HCCI
[204] 4S, SOHC NA engine 1 83 92 1200 145.8 19.5:1 Water 498 – GCI
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

[258] 4S, diesel engine 1 82.55 114.3 900 254 10:01 – – – HCCIa
[269] 4S TCI, ω type CC 4 100 127 1200 – 17.5:1 Water 662 – HCCIa
[284] 4 stroke, Ford 1 86 86 2000 145.5 12.5:1 – – – HCCIa
[304] 4S, Ricardo E6/MS, pre–chamber engine 1 76.2 110 800 – 17.2:1 – 507 – HCCIa
[274] TY1100 1 110 115 1400 18:01 – – – HCCI/PCCI
[281] Ford Dura Torq–Puma 4 86 86 1500 – 18.2:1 Water 1998 – HECC
[282] 4S, modified research engine 4 86 86 1500 – 18:01 Water 1998 – HECC
[283] 4 Stroke, stepped–lip bowl piston 1 129 155 1200 256 16.8:1 – 2.026 – HECC
[202] 4S, NA, 186FA CI engine 1 86 72 3000 – 15.5:1 – 418 2.5 JCCI
[311] 4S, Re–entrant type CC, CRDI 1 99 108 1500 177 16.35:1 – 830 – LTCa
[263] 4S, GM Ecotec, turbocharged engine 4 86 86 – 9.2:1 – 2000 – LTC/HCCI
[248] 4S, optical NA diesel engine 4 92 110 1200 – 11:01 – – – LTR
[306] 4S, GM engine 1 – – – – – – – – PCCIa
[319] 4S, high speed DI, open crater/wide–shallow 4 82 90.4 2000 145.5 17:1 (diesel PCCI)/17.3:1 – – 1.83/1.5 PCCI, RCCI
bowl geometry diesel engine (dual RCCI)
[94] GA–1/ERL, Kirloskar DAF10 DI engine 1 102 116 1500 – 11:01 Water 948 – PCCI/GCI
[206] 4S, NA CRDI modified engine 1 – – 1500 – – 406 – PCCI/HCCI
[234] AVL optical research engine 1 85 90 1200 – 9.5:1 – 511 – PPC/HCCI
[261] 4S, NA, Kirloskar TAF1 1 87.5 110 1500 – 17.5:1 – 661 – PPLTC
[278] 4S, Cylindrical bowl piston 1 83 92 2000 – 17.7:1 – 497.8 1.4 PPLTC
[291] HSDI, XE355C 1(6) 130 158 1200 – 15.7:1 – 12,600 – PPLTC
[296] 4S, high speed DI CI engine 4 75 88.3 1500–2850 137 18:01 – 1600 – PPLTC
[305] 4S, common rail, SQR481A diesel engine 4 81 92.4 1800 – 17.5:1 – 1905 – PPLTC

10
[141] GM Z19DTH 4 82 90.4 – 17.5:1 water 1900 –– RCCIa
[147] 3401E SCOTE – 137.2 165.1 1300 211.6 16.1:1 – 0.7 RCCIa
[235] 4S diesel engine 1 130 160 1300 255 17.3:1 – 2123 – RCCIa
[255] DI–H2 ICE 1 92 85 1500 11:01 – 565 – RCCIa
[315] 4S, GW4D20 diesel engine 1 93.1 92 1600 – 16.7:1 – – – RCCIa
[242] Re–entrant bowl piston 1 82 90.2 1900 – 16.3:1 – 477 1.5 RCCI/HCCI
[231] 4S, light duty diesel engine 1 87.5 110 1500 – 15:01 Air 662 – RCCI/HCCI/
PCCI
[238] Re–entrant bowl piston 1 86 86 1500 – 18.2:1 – 499 – RCCI/HCCI/
PCCI
[255] 4S, DI–H2ICE engine 1 80 73 2500 – 16:01 – 367 – RefCCIa
[153] Ford puma 1 86 86 1500 – 18.2:1 – 498 – RSC/CSC
[280] 4S, diesel engine, ω type CC 1 98 105 – – 18.5:1 – 782 – SCCI
[332] 4S, ω CC, 1 85 90 1200 – 9.5 – 511 – PPC
[333] 4S, ω CC, CRDI 4 93 102 1600 – 17.2:1 water – – RCCI
[334] 4S, DI, open crater CC, 1 123 152 1200 225 14.4:1 – 1806 – RCCI
[335] 3401E Scote, Articulated piston, – 137.2 165.1 1300 261.6 14.88:1 – 2440 0.7 RCCI/PPC/
DDFS
[336] 4S, GM 1.9L, Re–entrant bowl, 1 82 90.4 1490 145.54 16.7:1 – 477 1.5 RCCI/HCCI/
CDC
[337] 3401E Scote, shallow–RCCI piston, Maxican – 137.2 165.1 1300 – 14.88:1, 16.1:1 – 2440 – RCCI/HCCI
hat piston–stock piston,
[338,339] 3401E Scote, bathtub shape piston, – 137.2 165.1 1300 261.6 14.88:1 – 2440 0.7 RCCI/DPI
[340] Turbo, CRDI 3 80 98 3000 148 17.2:1 – 1478 – RCCI
[341] Cummins N–14, optical engine 1 139.7 152.4 1200 304.8 10.75:1 – 2340 0.5 RCCIa
[342] 4S, NA 1 88 110 1500 165.3 16:1 water 553 – RCCI
[343] 4S, GT–power 1 105 117 230 19.5:1 – – – RCCIa
[344] VCR, VVT – 137.2 165.1 130 261.6 16.1:1 – 2440 – RCCIa
[345] CRDI, AV1 1 80 110 1500 – 16.5:1 water 553 – PCCI
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404

center [84]. Maximum in-cylinder gas pressure occurs a few degrees

after the top dead center for obtaining higher output power. Main in-

LTC mode
jection mode produces higher NOx and soot emissions along with in-

RCCI
RCCI
RCCI
cylinder pressure [110]. Generally, fuel is supplied into the cylinder 50°

CDC
CDC
(based on the engine) before the end of compression stroke which

Swirl ratio
provides enough time for air and fuel mixing, and the engine can be
operated with an equivalence ratio of 0.8–1.2. Controlling of engine
operations are little bit difficult in the early injection model due to the

–
–
–
–
–
unexpected SOC. Engine power and combustion period are controlled

Displacement volume
through the main injection in the case of split injection model
[152–154]. Some multiple injection models use a small amount of fuel
allocated into a separate portion which is much shorter than the pre and
main injection events called after injection. After injection occurs im-
mediately after the main injection (close post/after injection) correla-

1900
498
500
(cc)
tively a long time after the main injection (late post/post-injection).

–
–
After injection occasionally called as post-injection [130]. Post injection
is small relative to the main injection i.e., approximately 3–20% of the
total fuel. Despite the number of researches on post injections, little

Cooling
system
consensus exists in soot oxidation in diesel engines [131,132].

–
–
–
–
–
2.4. Operating parameters

Engine functioning parameters such as fuel supply system, EGR, pre-

Compression ratio
combustion chamber, variable valve actuation mechanism influences
the LTC diesel engine performance, combustion and emission char-
acteristics [133]. Amount of EGR rate is determined by using the ex-

17.7:1
16.7:1
13.5:1
17.5:1
perimental measurements from manometer or intake and exhaust CO2

17:1
concentrations [122]. For achieving nearly zero NOx emissions, the
EGR level is kept higher than 50%. The 50% of EGR approximately
CR length

replace 12% of intake oxygen molecules which lead to reduced com-

(mm)

bustion efficiency and increased the soot, CO and HC emissions [129].

262
Using the pre-combustion chamber is one of the ways to enhance lean
–
–
–

–
operating conditions in both gasoline and diesel engines. Local rich
Speed (rpm)

2500–2100

fuel-air concentrations are developed by fuel injection in pre-combus-

tion chamber and the combustion process initiated within rich fuel
1800
1400

1500

zone. Then the partially burned fuels directed into the main combustion
–

chamber for further combustion resulting in more complete and stable

combustion. Pre-combustion chamber wall is thermally insulated to
Stroke
(mm)

increase the charge temperature during the engine working and reduces
95.5

145
110
92
92

the heat transfer losses through the walls. Therefore, the engine re-
quired a lower amount of HRF to produce combustion reactions com-
(mm)

pared to that of direct combustion chamber engines [19,110]. VVT is a

Bore

79.5

83.1

87.5
132
83

strategy which varies the opening and closing timing of the exhaust and
intake valves during engine process. Early intake/exhaust valve open
and late intake/exhaust valve close timings and vice-versa involved in
Number of

this strategy [134]. Lower CR typically used with the VVT method
cylinders

which has shorter compression stroke and lower peak pressure rise,
NOx and soot emissions [135,136]. LTC mode uses different fuel in-
4
1
1
1
1

jection models to achieve the required fuel stratification in the cylinder.

Most researchers investigated the optimum injection timing to control
combustion phasing and reducing harmful NOx and soot emissions.
Multi-fuel injection strategies are mostly used along with the different
dwell time to reduce the NOx emissions and fuel consumption
Kirloskar TV1, HCC, TSGCC
Variable IVC, stroke length

[179,180]. Wide range of fuels has been tried in LTC mode engines with
DSCS, SSCS piston bowl
4S, NA, DOHC 4 valves

advanced or retarded injection mode, different quantity of injections

and injection patterns. Commonly, the LRF injected in a pulse or con-
tinuous mode in the intake port from 130 to 380° CA bTDC [137,158].
Engine model

2.5. Summary of the literature work

Numerical work.
TDI
Table 1 (continued)

Different test engines used by the researchers are listed and ex-
pressed in Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of different fuels
are summarized in Table 2. Table 3 provides a summary of the DFI and
Ref. No

PFI descriptions. The fuel injection timing and valve actuation timing
[346]
[347]
[348]
[350]
[353]

are shown in Table 4 Variations in performance, emission and com-

a

bustion indicators are listed precisely in Table 5–7 respectively.

11
 Table 5
Performance behavior of the LTC mode engines.
Operating condition Range of operation Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Comparison point Fuel consumption TE (I/B)* MEP bar (I/ Test condition Ref.
B)* No.
SFC SEC
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

H2 0%–30% Diesel CH4 Hydrogen 30% vs 0% H2 – – – 3.35 bar (I) – [138]

Pr, EGR 1–100 vol%, 0–45% Isooctane n–heptane – (70%), 45% EGR vs. 0% – – 39.5% (I) – – [139]
Pr, CR 70–90%, Diesel Gasoline – (80%) 14:1 vs. 11:1 – ↓ 7% – ↑3.84% ICT: 40 °C [140]
11–14:1 CT:80 °C
OT:90 °C
EGR, spray angle 4.2–52%, 25–74° Diesel Gasoline – 50% vs. 4.2%, (15°) – – – – AFR: 27:1 [141]
BMEP: 2 bar
Pr 20–60% Dimethyl Ethanol – (60% DME & 40% E) vs. 100% DME – – – 4.8 bar (I) IT: 20 °CA [142]
ether ICT: 22 °C
CT: 70 °C
ICT, pre–chamber 335–375 K Diesel Natural gas – 375 K – – – – RPM:800 [143]
ICP:1.2 bar
CR, fuel ratio, DI 15–17.5, 2–20 mg, 30–70 °bTDC Diesel Gasoline – 17.5, 20 mg, 50 °CA vs. CCM – – 29% (B) – RPM:1500, [144]
timing BMEP:3 bar
L, fuel ratio 25%–100%, 35%–45% Diesel 2–butanol – 100%, 45% vs CCM – – 35% (B) – RPM:2800 [145]
OT: 80 °C
CT:90 °C
PFI, DI ratio 30%–50%, 20%–50% Diesel Safflower oil biodiesel Ethanol 50%,50% 332 g/kWh – 27.5% – RPM:1500 [146]
(B) BP:10.8 kW
Pr 53%–69% Diesel Gasoline – 60% – – – – IT: 40 °C [147]
RPM: 1300
IMEP, Pr, IVC 5–9 bar, 0.63–0.86, low–mid. Diesel Gasoline – 5 bar, 0.86, mid 222 g/ – – – RPM:1300 [148]
kW–hr (I) EGR:0.43

12
Pr, ICP, EGR, 60–80%, 01.65–0.12 MPa, 0–40%, Diesel Gasoline – (70%, 0.12 MPa) 30% vs. 0% EGR 170 g/ – – 7.6 bar (I) RPM:1600 [149]
kW–hr (I) at IP: 800 bar
45% EGR
IP, EAT, EGR 800–1400 bar, 3.35–4.57, 50–70% Diesel Gasoline – (1400 bar, 3.35) 50% vs. 70% EGR 175.4 g/ – – 8 bar (I) RPM:1600 [150]
kW–hr (I) ICP: 1.2 bar
ICT: 25 °C
ICP, ICT, Pr, SOI, 1.2–1.8 ab, 360–400 K, 0–100%, 80–0 Diesel Gasoline Methanol 1.6, 389, 67.2%, 20.71 CA, 16.16% 175 g/ – – – RPM:1500 [151]
EGR °bTDC, 0–100% kW–hr (I)
FFR, AFR, SOI, EGR 2.188–1.567:89.77–92.78, 3.88–2.63, n–heptane Natural gas – 2.188:89.77, 3.88, 25 deg., 0% – – – – – [152]
(case 1–10) 15–25°bTDC, 0–30%
SOI, EGR, ICP, ICT 60–0°bTDC, 0–1.0, 0–3 bar, 320–450 K Diesel n–heptane – SOI: 18 °bTDC 155 g/kW- – – – – [153]
hr (I)
ICP, mf , PFI, EGR 1.5–2 bar,20–60 mg/cycle, 20–80%, Biodiesel n–butanol/ Ethanol (1.5, 40, 50%E) 50% vs. 0% EGR – – 47.5% (I) – ICT: 313 K [154]
0–30% 2,5–dimethylfuran OT:95
CT:85
mf (D), mf (g), 24.5 mg/str., Diesel Gasoline – 24.5, 50.2 mg/stroke – – – – RPM:1200 [155]
0–28.7 mg/str. L:25%
EGR:45%
L, 25–100%, Diesel Biodiesel Natural gas (CNG–biodiesel vs. diesel) L:50%, – – 41.18% – CR: 17:1 [156]
(I) RPM: 1200
EGR, RPM, ICP, Pr 5–48%, 800–1800 rpm, 1–3 bar, 73–83% Diesel Methane – 5%, 800, 1 bar, 73% – – – – ICT:60 [157]
IMEP, EGR, ICT 4.6–14.6 bar, 0–57%, 32–26 °C, Diesel Gasoline – 14.6, 57%, 32 °C – – 52% (I) – RPM:1300 [158]
ICT, EGR 359–362 K, 52.59–53.89 Diesel – – FFR: 12.54 mg/cycle – – – – RPM:2000 [159]
(PCCI) SOI: 35 °bTDC
ICP:140 kPa
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
 Table 5 (continued)

Operating condition Range of operation Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Comparison point Fuel consumption TE (I/B)* MEP bar (I/ Test condition Ref.
B)* No.
SFC SEC

PFR, SOI 0–60%, Diesel Ethanol – PF fraction: 60% vs. 100% – – – 7 bar (I) RPM:3000 [159]
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

(RCCI) 37–12 °bTDC SOI: 14 °bTDC

ICP:101.3 kPa
ICT: 296 K
EGR:0%
PFR, SOI, Pr, EGR, 60–100%, 14–12 °bTDC, 60–80%, Diesel Ethanol – 60%, 14 °bTDC, 60%, 0% – – 45.6% (I) – ICP: 2 bar, [160]
ICT 0–30%, 40–100 °C
RPM, IMEP, Pr, SOI 1002–1501, 3.2–18.5, 60–93%, Diesel Natural gas – 1002, 6.9, 75%, 50°bTDC – – – – – [161]
50–55°bTDC
Pr, SOI, 0.2–0.8, 40–5 °bTDC, Diesel Gasoline Biogas mf :10 mg, 40 vs. 5°bTDC – – – 4 bar (I) OT: 70 °C [162]
ICT: 120 °C
RPM:1200
L, mode 0–100%, HCCI & CCM Diesel Gasoline Ethanol (60%), HCCI vs. CCM 300 g/ – – – – [163]
kW–hr (B)
SOI, L, Pr 16–70 °bTDC, low–medium, 60–80% Diesel Syngas A Syngas B 16 °bTDC, mid, 68% 190 g/ – – – ICT:330 K [164]
kW–hr (I) ICT: 3.2–3.5 bar
EGR:33%
SOI, IP 60–40, 4–8 MPa n–heptane n–butanol – 60, 80 bar – – 32% (I) – OT:95 °C [165]
CT:85 °C
IMEP, ICP, SOI 5.6–13.5, 0.97–2.2, 51–35 °bTDC n–heptane Methane – 11.5, 1.9 bar, 48 °bTDC – – 52.12% – ICT:40 [166]
(I)
Pr, ICT, DFI 20–70%, 55–60 °C, 20–45 Diesel Gasoline – 51%, 50, D45 – – 32.65 (B) 6.089 bar [167]
(I)
SOI, Pr 140–15 °bTDC, 0.25–0.32 Diesel Isooctane n–heptane 30 °bTDC, PRF (φ:0.25 & 80% – – – – ICT: 25 [168]

13
premixed) vs. diesel FE:3200 J/cycle
EGR, Pr 0–50%, 60–95% n–heptane Isooctane – 0, 89% – – – – ICP: 1.74 bar [169]
ICT:32C
EGR:41%
DIP:800 bar
Pr, ICT, SOI 0.28–0.35, 40–60 °C, 140–35°bTDC n–heptane Syngas Methane 0.28, 40 °C, 140°bTDC – – – – FE:2590 J/cycle [170]
ICT: 40 °C
BMEP, Pr, ICT 1.06–4.25, 34–93%, 40–120 °C Diesel Gasoline – 4.25, 80, 50 °C – – 35% (B) – [171]
SOI 50–2.2°bTDC Diesel Gasoline – 30°bTDC – – – BMEP: 4.2 bar [172]
EGR, ϕ 30–55%, 0.8–1.0 Diesel Gasoline – (55%) 0.93 RCCI vs. 0.98 GCI – – 43.8% (I) – IMEP: 20 bar [173]
IMEP, 053 & 0.68 MPa Diesel Gasoline Ethanol 0.53 MPa, diesel/gasoline – – – ICT: 26 °C [174]
EGR:0%
CT:70
EGR, SOI1, SOI2 0–40%, 70–48 °bTDC, 58–36 °bTDC Diesel Syngas – 0%, 70 & 48 °CA – – 43.6% (I) – ICP:1.74 bar [175]
IMEP:7.5 bar
FE:4300 J/cycle
Pr, SOI, ICT, RPM 20–60%, 15–70 °bTDC, 40–100 °C, n–heptane Isooctane – 60%, 60, 40 °C, 1000 – 40% (I) 8.75 bar (I) ICP:0.95 bar [176]
800–2000
RPM, 1200–1600 Diesel Natural gas – 1320 230 g/ – – – RPM:1320 [178]
kW–hr (I) BMEP: 12.3 bar
Pr, EGR 50–100, 0–40% Diesel Natural gas (A,B) – 85% A vs. 85% B, 0% – 50.74% – ICP:1.75 [178]
(I) ICT: 60 °C
IMEP: 9 bar
Pr, BP 10–30%, 0–3 kW Diesel Cotton seed biodiesel – 80% DI + 20% PFI, 2.4 kW 340 g/ – 25% (B) – – [179]
kW–hr (I)
ICT, 48–85 °C, Diesel Gasoline – 70 °C 0.095 g/ – 19% (B) – ICP:1.03 bar [180]
s–cycle EGR:0%
BMEP: 1 bar
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
 Table 5 (continued)

Operating condition Range of operation Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Comparison point Fuel consumption TE (I/B)* MEP bar (I/ Test condition Ref.
B)* No.
SFC SEC

BMEP, Pr 0–5 bar, 46.5–83.3% Diesel Gasoline – 4 bar, 83.3% – – 44% (I) 5 bar (I) FIP: 480 bar [181]
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

ICP: 1.08 bar

ICT:315 K
EGR:0%
SOI, Pr 38.1–14.1 Diesel Methane – 26 deg., 85% PFI – – – – φ:0.72 [182]
ICT:40 °C
ICP:0.75
EGr:0%
IMEP: 6 bar
SOI, Pr 180–0 deg., 80–100%, n–heptane isooctane – 90 deg., 80% – – – – ICT: 40 °C [183]
ICP:1.04
EGR:0%
EGR, 0–50%, Diesel Natural gas – 0% EGR, 12%NG + 88% diesel – – – – ICP:1.19 bar [184]
ICP, ICT, SOI 1.6–1.85 bar, 313–420 K, 90–30 n–heptane Methane – 1.6 bar, 40C, 45 – – – – IMEP:9.4 bar [185]
φ:0.3
EGR:0%
RPM, BMEP 1000–3500, 0–10 bar Diesel Biodiesel Gasoline 3000, 6 bar – – 24% (B) – – [186]
CR, Gasoline type 4:1–14:1, (A,B,C,D) Gasoline – – 10:1, A – – – – φ:0.5 [187]
ICT:150 °C
RPM, BP 1000–3500, 0–30 KW Diesel Gasoline – 3000, 20 kW 310 g/kWh – – – – [188]
(B)
CDC, RCCI – Diesel Gasoline – RCCI – – – – ICT:25 °C [189]
RH:58%
Pr 50–80% Diesel Gasoline – 60% vs. neat diesel – – 49% (I) – ICP:3.1 bar [190]

14
HCCI, PPC, RCCI – Diesel Gasoline – RCCI vs. HCCI – – 47.5% (I) – IMEP:5 bar [191]
ICP:1.3 bar
ICT:50C
IMEP, Pr 0–30 bar, 55–65% High low reactivity fuel – 8 bar, 60% – – 45.3% – EGR:28% [192]
reactivity (B) φ:0.32
fuel
BMEP, CI, PCCI 0–6 bar, Diesel Blend – 3 bar, PCCI – – 32% (B) – – [193]
CI, PCCI, IP 400–1000 bar Diesel – – – – – – – ICP: 2.8 bar [194]
ICT:29.4 °C
CI, PCCI, AFR, EGR 25–60, 0–45% Diesel Natural gas – PCCI, 40, 0% vs. CCM – – – – IMEP: 3 bar [195]
Pr, 0–70% Diesel Gasoline – 70% vs. neat diesel – – 41.52% – IMEP:6.5 bar [196]
(I) ICP: 1.1 bar
OT:75 °C
CT:85 °C
Pr, IMEP 30–70%, 0.52–0.55 MPa Diesel Propane – 50% propane +50% diesel vs. CCM – – 39.49% – OT:85 °C [197]
(I) CT:85 °C
ICP:1.13 bar
EGR:32%
Blend, torque 10–30% Diesel Cottonseed oil – 20% biodiesel + 80% diesel, 1.7 0.38 kg/ – 41% (I) – [198]
biodiesel Nm vs. CCM kWh (B)
Pilot ratio, SoPI, 20–60%, 38–26 °bTDC, 26–6°bTDC Diesel – – 40%, 34°bTDC, 26°bTDC. – – – – ICT:45 °C [199]
SoIM EGR:40%
BMEP, RPM, 3–4 bar, 1400–1600 Diesel – 3 bar, 1400 PCCI vs. CCM – – – – CT:82 °C [200]
BD fraction, IP, SoMI 20–40%, 400–1000 bar, 12–24 °bTDC Diesel Biodiesel – B20, 700 bar, 16 °bTDC, 0.35 kg/ – 26% (B) – OT:90 °C [201]
SOPI:35°bTDC vs. diesel kWh (B) EGR:30%
IMEP, Gasoline 3.2–5.1 bar, G20–G60% Diesel Gasoline – (3.2 bar) G30 vs. neat diesel – – – – RPM:1800 [203]
ratio, SOE: 11 °bTDC
EGR:0%
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
 Table 5 (continued)

Operating condition Range of operation Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Comparison point Fuel consumption TE (I/B)* MEP bar (I/ Test condition Ref.
B)* No.
SFC SEC

Gasoline/biodiesel 80–95% G, Gasoline Soya bean biodiesel Diesel GB20 (20%BD+80%G) vs. diesel – – 27% (B) 5.5 bar (I) ICP: 1 bar [204]
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

ICT:298 K
GK, GD, Torque 5–15%, 10–40 Nm Gasoline Kerosene Diesel 15% diesel + 85 gasoline, (40 Nm) – 9 MJ/ 36% (B) – ST: 25°bTDC [94]
vs. gasoline100% kWh BMEP:5.3 bar
Pr, L 0–90%, 25–75%, Diesel Dimethyl ether – 90%, 50% – 5.8 MJ/ 26% (B) – ICP:1 bar [206]
kWh ICT:30 °C
BMEP, Pr 2.4–4.8 bar, 0–50% Diesel Dimethyl ether LPG 4.8 bar, Diesel + DME/LPG (50%) – – 36% (B) – – [207]
G–D ratio, oxygen, 25–50% G, 10–14.5%, 38–18 °bTDC Diesel Gasoline – G50, (14.5%, 22°CA) vs. diesel – – – 3.4 bar (B) ICT: 45 °C [208]
IT EGR; 40%
DME, L, SOI 3.8–23 mg/cycle, 39–78%, 11–3 Diesel Dimethyl ether – 3.8mg/cycle, 39%, 11 deg. 244 g/kWh – – – ICT: 50 °C [209]
(B) CT:80 °C
Rp, IMEP 0–0.67, 1.4–4.9 bar Diesel Bio–ethanol – 0.57, 3.7 bar – – – – ICT:317 K [210]
ICP:1.1 bar
Pr, EGR, BMEP 0–30%, 0–27%, 2.5–5 bar Diesel Dimethyl ether – 14%, (27%, 2.5 bar) vs. diesel 0.275 g/ – 30.2% – CT:80 °C [211]
kWh (B) (B)
FFR, RPM 12.54–23 mg/cycle Diesel – – 12.54 mg/cycle 2000 rpm – – – 5.4 bar (I) ICT:1.8 bar [212]
ICT:360 K
EGR:50%
EGR, SOMI, SOPI 0–30%, 24–12 °bTDC, 40–30°bTDC Diesel – – 15%, (24 °CA, 40 °CA) 0.43 g/kWh – 20% (B) – – [213]
ICT, SOI 320–420 K, 60–0 Diesel – – IVC: 140°bTDC 200 g/kWh – – – – [214]
(I)
SOI 40–20 Diesel – – 35 deg. – – – 5.9 bar (I) EGR:60% [215]
IMEP:5.9 bar
IP, SOI 500–700 bar, 30–18°bTDC Diesel – – – – – – – BMEP: 1 bar [216]

15
D–E Blends, BP d–d, D–E15D, E15D–D, 0–3 kW Diesel Ethanol – Pilot: E15D 0.31 kg/ – – – T:14Nm [217]
Main: D kWh (B)
(3 kW) vs. CCM
φ, L 0–50%, 0–100% Diesel Ethanol – E30, (80%) vs. CCM – 12 MJ/ 32% (B) – – [218]
kWh
Pr – Diesel – – 10% 292 g/kWh – – – EGR:20% [219]
(B)
EGR, RPM, BMEP 0–50%, 1500–2750, 2–12 bar Diesel – – 27%, 2000 rpm, 5 bar 240 g/kWh – – – SOPI: 17 bTDC [220]
SOMI: 0 TDC
IP, SoPI, SoMI 700–1000, 40–30°bTDC, Diesel – – 1000 bar, (35 °bTDC, 12°bTDC), vs. 0.35 kg/ – 24% (B) – OT:90 °C [221]
24–12°bTDC 400 bar IP kWh CT:60 °C
EGR:15%
RPM, IMEP, SOI, 1500–2500, 2.5–5 bar, 0–45% Diesel – – 1500, 5 bar, SOPI1: 40 °bTDC 339.2 g/ – 39.5% – OT: 80 °C [222]
EGR SOPI2: 25 °bTDC kWh (B) CT: 80 °C
40% ICT: 20 °C
Pr, SOI, EGR 0–65%, 45–10°bTDC, 0–47% Diesel Propane – 20%, (20 °bTDC, 0%) vs. diesel – – 45.95% – OT: 75 °C [223]
(I) CT: 85 °C
IMEP: 5.2 bar
FT:315 K
ICP:1.06 bar
EGR, L 0–30%, 0–100%, Diesel – – 10%, (75%) vs. CCM – – 25% (B) – – [224]
ICP, EGR, SOI 1.01–2 bar, 0–45%, 30–10°bTDC Diesel – – 2 bar, 0%, 30 deg., – – 34% (I) 3 bar ICT: 40 °C [225]
IP:800 bar OT: 80 °C
CT: 80 °C
Fuel, SOI D, LTFT, renewable diesel–RD, Diesel LTFT RD RD, (12°bTDC) vs. diesel 238 g/kg – – – EGR:40% [226]
fuel IMEP: 3.5 bar
Blend, L 0–100% load Diesel Bio–ethanol – E20, (100%) vs. CCM – – – – Φ:0.6 [227]
L, blend 0–100%, D, D–G, D–E Diesel (D) Gasohol (G) Ethanol (E) 100%, G(20%G+80%D) vs. D – 12 MJ/ 30% (B) – – [228]
kWh
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
 Table 5 (continued)

Operating condition Range of operation Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Comparison point Fuel consumption TE (I/B)* MEP bar (I/ Test condition Ref.
B)* No.
SFC SEC

Fuel, SOI/EOI – Diesel Biodiesel – B100, 22/11.63 195 kg/kg – – – IMEP:5.5 bar [229]
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

fuel ICT:338 K
ICT:1.62 bar
EGR:67%
Pr, 0–50% Cotton seed n–butanol Diesel 50% n–butanol, 50%BD – 10.8 MJ/ – – EGR:20% [230]
BD kWh IMEP:6 bar
BMEP, L, Pr, EGR 0–4.25 bar, 20–80%, 41.7–96.1% Diesel Gasoline – (i) HCCI (i) 0.75 – (i) 10% – ICT: 30 °C (PCCI [231]
(ii) PCCI (ii)0.67 (ii)14% & RCCI)
(iii) RCCI (iii)0.5 (iii)16% ICT: 50 °C (HCCI)
1.01 bar vs. CCM kJ/kWh
IMEP, mode 8–10 bar, Diesel Gasoline Butanol, Gasoline PF + diesel DI, 7.7 bar – – 40.8% (I) – ICT:32 °C [232]
ethanol ICP:1.8 bar
Pr, RPM 37–90%, 1400–2200 Diesel Gasoline Ethanol 90%, 1500, 355°CA PFI (RCCI 350.46 g/ 1.76 MJ/ – – OT: 80 °C [233]
mode) kWh km CT: 90 °C
Intake O2:19.3%
λ:2.8
ICT, SOI 65–105 °C, 180–40°bTDC Gasoline FACE 1 gasoline – PPC (PRF70), 40 °bTDC – – – – ICP:1.5 bar [234]
OT: 80 °C
CT: 80 °C
SoPI, SoMI 60–20°bTDC, 5°bTDC Ethanol – – 50°bTDC, 10 °bTDC – – 45% (I) – IMEP:12 bar [235]
ICT:405 K
Fuel, RPM D, D–G, D–E80, 1200–3500 Diesel Gasoline Ethanol D–E80, (3500), vs. CCM 340.78 g/ – 61.9% – – [236]
kWh (B)
Fuel, Pr, SOI B0, B20, B40, 50–95%, Diesel Butanol Gasoline B40 (60%D+40%butanol), 80%, – – 31% (B) 3.6 bar (I) ICP:1.17 bar [237]

16
53°CA ICT:26 °C
CT: 80 °C
L, LTC mode, 6.7–7.6 bar, Diesel Butanol – 6.7 bar, IP:600 bar – – 42% (I) – CT: 80 °C [238]
Fuel: butanol EGR:0%
Mode:DI
EGR, IMEP, ICP, ICT 10–30%, 5–16 bar, 1–12 bar, 330–650 K Diesel – – 23%, 16 bar, 3.44 bar, 413 K – – – – IVC: 115 °bTDC, [239]
FI:191.6 mg/
cycle
Pr, RPM, 37–66%, 1400–2200, Diesel Gasoline – 49%, 1800 rpm – – – – MEP:4.5 bar [240]
ICT:1.6 bar
EGR:0%
OT: 90 °C
CT: 80 °C
Pr, IMEP, SOI 0–67%, 8–12 bar, 2 to −1°bTDC Diesel Ethanol – 67%, 12 bar, 2°bTDC – – 43% (I) – ICT:295 K [241]
ICP:1.75 bar
Combustion 30°bTDC to 10 °aTDC Diesel Gasoline – (9°aTDC) RCCI vs. CCM – – – – RCCI [242]
regimes, IMEP:5.7 bar
EGR:0%
Pr, ICT 0–85%, 396–419 K Diesel Gasoline Methanol 85%G+15%D, 419 K 180 g/kWh – – – EGR:0% [243]
(I) ICT:1.6 bar
SOI2, Pr, dwell 35°bTDC, 5–35 °aTDC, 30–70%, 5–35 CA Biodiesel Gasoline – 9°bTDC, 70%, 15CA – – – – ICP:1.1 bar [244]
IMEP:3.09 bar
ICP, ICT, SOI, EGR, 1.2–1.8 bar, 360–400 K, 80–0 °bTDC Diesel Gasoline Methanol 1.6 bar, 389 K, 20.71 °bTDC, 172 g/kWh – – – (M/D RCCI) [245]
Rp 0–100%, 20.71–52.79% 16.16%, 67.2% (I)
Pr, EGR, IP 0–90%, 0–42%, 200–1000 bar Diesel Natural gas – 90%, 42%, 1000 bar vs. neat diesel – – – – IMEP:12 bar [246]
ICP:1.58 bar
ICT:300.6 K
Φ:0.51
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
 Table 5 (continued)

Operating condition Range of operation Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Comparison point Fuel consumption TE (I/B)* MEP bar (I/ Test condition Ref.
B)* No.
SFC SEC

EGR, 50% for D, Diesel Palm biodiesel – B100, 46% EGR vs. diesel, 50% EGR – – 43.5% (I) – BMEP:2 bar [247]
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

46% for BD SOI:8bTDC

LTR With, without n–heptane – – Reformed fuel: 6 mg/cycle – – – – ICT:349 K [248]
ICP:1 bar
Φ:0.38
SOI, 60–30 °bTDC Diesel Gasoline – 60 °bTDC – – – – ICT:368 K [249]
IMEP:5.06 bar
IMEP 1.5–4.5 bar Gasoline – – – – – – CT: 80 °C [250]
λ 6.5–14.7% Natural gas Dimethyl ether – 6.5% NG – – – – ICP:1 atm [251]
ICT: 28 °C
λNG : 7.1%
CWT:400 K
NO centration 0–500 ppmv Iso–octane – – 500 ppmv – – – – OT:373 K [252]
NO centration – Iso–octane – – NO:19.9 ppm – – – – ICT:448 K [253]
ICP:1.2 bar
Φ:0.3
RPM, φ, ICP, 1500–3500, 0.44–0.97, 0.99–2.26 bar Gasoline – – 2000, 0.61, 1 bar – – – – ICT: 251/106 °C [254]
Mode RCCI/RefCCI DME Hydrogen – RCCI – – – – – [255]
N 1500–3500 rpm Iso–octane – – 2000 – – – – ICT:380 K [256]
ICP:1 bar
Φ:0.8
EGR:25%
Fuel, N, D, E5, E10, 1000–2750 rpm Diesel Ethanol – E10, (2000 rpm) vs. diesel 270 g/kWh – 34.5% 8.2 bar (B) – [257]
(B)

17
– n–heptane – – Thermodynamic model – – – – – [258]
ICT, L 130–170 °C, 20–100% Ethanol Diesel – (170, 100%) E vs. D – – 42% (B) – – [259]
φ DEE, BMEP 5.9–10.5, 0–5 bar Ethanol DEE – 9.3, 3 bar – – 26% (B) – – [260]
EGR, IT 0–30%, 25–21°bTDC Diesel DME – 15%DME+85%D, (30% EGR, 23° – – 35% (B) – BMEP:5.3 bar [261]
bTDC) vs. diesel
ICP, N 1–2.5 bar, 1000–1600 Diesel Biodiesel – 50% BD, 1 bar, 1400 – – – – – [262]
N, ICT, φ 1350–1750 rpm, 135–166 °C, 0.23–0.38 Yanmar – GM – n–heptane – φ:0.35, – – – 2 bar (I) ICP:1 bar [263]
ethanol ICT:150 °C (Yanmar) EGR0%
N, EGR, ICP 1500–2000, 0–50%, 87–150 kPa Diesel – – 1750 rpm – – – 3.3 bar (I) ICT:80 °C [264]
FT: 42 °C
EGR, SOI, ICT, 0–52%, 4–1 °bTDC, 44.1–66.9 °C Diesel – – 2100 rpm, 4 °bTDC, 44.1 °C, 252 g/kWh – – – RH:50% [265]
mf: 68 mg/cycle (B) CT:85 °C
BMEP:5 bar
EGR:35%
Fuel injection 80–100% main inj. Diesel – – 50% engine load, 90%, 95 °bTDC, – – – 3.9 bar (I) EGR:45% [266]
1000 rpm vs. 1500 rpm OT:60 °C
FT: 60 °C
CT: 80 °C
65XO2, mf, IP 9–12%, 26–40 kg/m3, 1200–1400 bar Diesel – – 10%, 26 kg/m3, 1400 bar – – – – IMEP:9 bar [267]
ICT:75 °C
Pr, O3 0–100%, 1.6–47.8 ppm, Iso–octane n–heptane – 100%, 5.7 ppm – – – 5/3 bar (I) OT: 95 °C [268]
CT: 95 °C
ICT:180 °C
ICP:1.2 bar
Fuel, – Methanol Gasoline Diesel Methanol – – – – ICP:1.49 bar [269]
ICT:432 K
L, EGR 0–75%, 0–30% Diesel – – 75%, 20% – – 22% (B) – – [270]
Pr, fuel, EGR 0–40%, HBD, CBD, 0–20% Hydrogen Honge/Cotton seed Diesel 20%, HBD, 14%EGR vs. 0%EGR, D – – 23.7% – Load; 40% [271]
Biodiesel (B)
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
 Table 5 (continued)

Operating condition Range of operation Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Comparison point Fuel consumption TE (I/B)* MEP bar (I/ Test condition Ref.
B)* No.
SFC SEC

Pr, fuel, φ 0.4–0.63, ethanol, Iso–octane, butanol, Diesel Gasoline, ethanol n–heptane (φ:0.26, Pr:0.63), Isooctane vs. – – – – No PFI [272]
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

0.26–0.4 ethanol
ICT, λ (relative AFR) 120–150 °C, 2.5–4.5 Diesel – – 150 °C, (λ:4.5) vs. 130 °C 530 g/kWh – 28% (I) 1 bar – [273]
(I)
Pr, IT 0–100%, 19–15 °bTDC Dimethyl – – 33%, 19°bTDC – – 29% (B) – OT: 90 °C [274]
ether CT: 80 °C
EGR:0%
BMEP:3.4 bar
N, CR, BMEP, EGR 1500–2750, 16.5–15:1, 0–13 bar, 0–20% Diesel – – 1500 rpm, 15:1, 13 bar, 0%EGR – – – – – [275]
IT, EGR 40–2°bTDC, 0–40% Diesel – – 25°bTDC, 0% – – 42% (I) 3.3 bar (I) OT: 80 °C, [276]
CT: 80 °C,
ICT:40 °C,
ICP:101 kPa
Fuel, IT B20, B100, 30–22°bTDC Diesel Biodiesel – B20, (22 °bTDC) vs. B100 182.96 g/ – – – IMEP:5.5 bar, [277]
kWh (I) EGR:67%,
ICT:338 K,
ICP:1.62 bar
ICT, φ(oxygen) 70–80 °C, 0.484–0.665 Ethanol – – 70 °C, 0.484 vs. diesel – – – 9 bar (I) CT: 90 °C, [278]
ICT: 60 °C,
BMEP:4.26 bar
Water injection 0–6.7 mg/cycle, 105–119 °C, 2.3–8.4 bar, Diesel – – 6.6 mg/cycle at 85.2 bar IP, 110 °C, – – – – Negative valve [279]
amount, ICT, 6.1 bar vs. 0% water, 2.3 bar IMEP overlapping,
IMEP φ:0.98,
ICP:1.05 bar,

18
Fuel, IT, φ, Pr 26–10°bTDC, 0.35–0.65, 0.5 n–heptane Isooctane – PI & DI: n–heptane, 26°bTDC, 0.53, – – – – ICT: 20 °C, [280]
60%Pr,
Pr, EGR, IMEP 45–50%, 0–40%, 0–12 bar Diesel Ethanol/butanol Gasoline Gasoline–diesel, 30%, 12 bar – – – – ICT: 40 °C, [281]
Fuel, PI/DI, diesel/butanol n–butanol – – DI–butanol vs. diesel – – 36% (I) 6.6 bar (I) ICT: 25 °C, [282]
ICP:2 bar,
EGR:0%
ICP, ICT, EGR 115–300 kPa, 307–232 K, 0–25%, Diesel Ethanol – 260 kPa, 324 K, 20% vs. CCM – – 46.5% (I) – IMEP: 18 bar, [283]
Fuel, – Ethanol PRF90 (90% – 80%–20% (ethanol split inj.) – – – – ICT:403 K, [284]
iso–octane+10% φ:0.74,
n–heptanes) IMEP:3.7 bar
Residual:0.41
Mode, LTC, conventional Diesel – – ICP:117 kPa, LTC 190 g/kWh – – 5.7 bar (I) OT: 90 °C, [285]
CT: 80 °C,
ICT:60 °C,
EGR:41.5%
IT, EGR, swirl, IP 30–10 CA, 40–56.5% Diesel – – Swirl:30 – – – – EGR:47.5%, [286]
ICT:874.8 K
ICP:1.25 bar
IMEP, EGR 4–17 bar, 0–35% Diesel Ethanol – 60% ethanol, 8.2 bar IMEP, 30% – – 43.7% (I) – ICP:1.5 bar, [287]
EGR ICT:40 °C,
φ:0.6,
VVT, IV:2 (I), 2.5(b) Isooctane n–butanol – n–butanol, Valve lift; – – – – OT: 55 °C, [288]
EV:0.75, 0.6, IV:2.5 mm, EV:0.6 mm CT: 80 °C,
IMEP:1.75 bar
ICP, IMEP, NVO, 1–2.65 bar, 4–10 bar, 130–72CAD Octane – – – – – – – ICT:308 K, [289]
EGR, IP 10–36%, 600–1400 bar Diesel Soy biodiesel – IP:1000 bar, – – 38.7% (I) – IMEP:2 bar [290]
EGR:36%
Pr, IMEP, EGR 0–40%, 5.5–6 bar, 0–50% Diesel Gasoline – 50G50D, 5.5 bar, 30% – – 40.8% (I) – ICT:40 °C, [291]
ICP:1 bar,
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
 Table 5 (continued)

Operating condition Range of operation Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Comparison point Fuel consumption TE (I/B)* MEP bar (I/ Test condition Ref.
B)* No.
SFC SEC

ICT, AFR, Fuel, 160–200 °C, 1.5–5.25, Diesel Gasoline, Kerosene Biodiesel 20%biodiesel+80%diesel, 200 °C, 280 g/kWh 12 kJ/ 28% (I) 4 bar EGR:10%, [292]
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

1.50AFR (I) kWh

Oxygen fraction, 8.5–12% mass, Diesel – – 12%, SOI1: 48 °bTDC, SOI2: 12 – – – – OT: 90 °C, [293]
°bTDC CT: 80 °C,
ICT:72 °C,
ICP:120 kPa
Swirl ratio, 0.76–2.43, Diesel – – IMEP: 6 bar, – – – – OT: 90 °C, [294]
Swirl: 2.43 CT: 80 °C,
ICT:345 K,
ICP:150 kPa,
Oxygen:10%,
Fuel, IP Gasoline/biodiesel, diesel, Diesel Gasoline Soy 5%BD+95%G, (IP:1000 bar) vs. – – – – ICT:333 K, [295]
biodiesel diesel ICP:1 bar,
N, IMEP, IP, ICP, L 1500–2500 rpm, 3.1–5.5 bar, Diesel – – 40 °bTDC, (2500 rpm, 5.5 bar, – – – – – [296]
400–600 bar, 1.5–1.8 bar, 0–80% 600 bar, 1.8 bar, 40%) vs. 34 °bTDC
IMEP, Engine 6–10 bar, Diesel – 6 bar, Ford puma, – – – – ICP:2 bar, [297]
ICT:40 °C,
EGR:60%
EGR, ICP, 0–64%, 1.5–2.4 bar, Diesel – 40%EGR, 1.5 bar. Vs 0%EGR – – – – OT: 95 °C, [298]
CT: 85 °C,
Late IVC, ICP, EGR, 146–60°bTDC, 2.26–3.82 bar, 22–68%, – – Mid load, 114.4 °bTDC, 3.82 bar, 235 g/kWh – – – IMEP:10.6 bar, [299]
22%, (I)
Pr, SOI, EGR 10–75%, 45–20°bTDC, 0–50% Diesel Natural gas 50% NG, (30°bTDC, 0% EGR) vs. – – 37% (I) – CT: 353 K, [300]
30%NG ICT:300 K,

19
IMEP:3 bar
Fuels, EGR, D, BD20, BDP10, BDP20, 0–50%EGR, Diesel Polyoxymethylene n–butanol BD20, (40% EGR), vs. diesel 300 g/kWh 29% (B) – BMEP:8 bar (45% [301]
dimethyl ether (B) L), ICP:1.4 bar,
ICT:30 °C,
CT: 85 °C,
Fuel, Pr, B10, B20, B50, B100, 30–52% G, Diesel Safflower biodiesel Gasoline B50, (50%gasoline), vs. diesel 333 g/kWh 27% (B) – BMEP: 3.6 bar, [302]
(B)
EGR, SoPI 1, SoPI 2, 0–48%, 26.4–18.9°bTDC, 17.2–5.5°bTDC, Diesel Dimethyl carbonate – 90%D+10%DME– D10 vs. D, (48% – 43.5% (I) – IMEP:4 bar, [303]
SoMI 7.1 to −4.4 °bTDC pin 1 : 21∘CA,
EGR, pin 2 : 11. 8∘CA
min : 1. 7∘CA
Mode, φ HCCI/PCCI, 0.1–0.3, Diesel – – PCCI vs. HCCI, (φ:0.3) – 45% (I) 8 bar (I) ICP:2.7 bar, [304]
ICT:450 K,
Fuel, SoPI, SoMI, G70D30, G50D50, D100, 36–14°bTDC, – – G50D50, 22 CA, 8 CA, 1.24 bar, 168 g/kWh – 48.4% (I) ICT:313 K, [305]
ICP, EGR 20–5°bTDC, 1.14–1.69 bar, 25–37% 30% vs. CCM (I) CT:353 K,
FT:303 K,
IMEP:8.42 bar
SoMI, 8–2°bTDC Diesel – – 6°bTDC – – – – IMEP:5.5 bar, [306]
ICP:1.62 bar,
ICT: 60 °C
SOI, Main Inj. Ratio, 95–45°bTDC, 100–80%, – – (60°bTDC), 80% vs. 100% – – – 4.1 bar (I) ICP:1 bar, [307]
CT: 80 °C,
FT: 60 °C, 50%
engine load
IMEP, 1–3 bar Diesel n–butanol, Peanut Ethanol 3 bar, PFI: n–butanol vs. CCM – – 25% (B) – – [308]
biodiesel
Fuel, ICT, Power, (n–heptane + isooctane) PFI–HCCI, (DI: n–heptane Isooctane – HCCI vs. RCCI, (10 kW) 220 g/kWh – 39.4%, – ICP:100 kPa [309]
n–heptane + PFI: isooctane) RCCI, (B), 250 g/ 38% (B)
40–100 °C, 0–15 kW kWh (B)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404

(continued on next page)

 Table 5 (continued)

Operating condition Range of operation Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Comparison point Fuel consumption TE (I/B)* MEP bar (I/ Test condition Ref.
B)* No.
SFC SEC

N 1500, 2500 Diesel Ethanol – (2500 rpm), E20D80, vs. diesel 269, 215 g/ – – – IMEP:11 bar, [310]
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

kWh (B) EGR:46%,

Φ:0.88
ICP:2.24 bar,
ICT: 69 °C
EGR, 51.8–54.4%, Diesel – – (54.4%) multi–injection vs. single – – – – IMEP:4.1 bar, [311]
injection ICT:333 K,
Pr, 0–70% (DEE0, DEE20, DEE40), Ethanol Diethyl ether – 70% (DEE40%), SOI:58°bTDC, – – – 4.5 bar (I) EGR:0% [312]
ICP:1.17 bar,
CT: 70 °C,
EGR, SOI, IMEP, λ 24–48%, 31–7 °bTDC, 7.94–9.3 bar, Diesel – – 24%, 7°bTDC, 9.3 bar, 5.87 – – – – – [313]
1.06–5.87,
SOI 20.8–12.7 °bTDC, Diesel – – 20.8°bTDC, vs. 13.7°bTDC – – – – BMEP:2.6 bar, [314]
(CN55–A45–T340) EGR:41%,
ICP:108 kPa
ICT: 90 °C,
Model, Experiment, CHEMKIN Diesel Gasoline – Experiment vs. CHEMKIN – – – – ICT:368 K, [315]
IMEP:5.06 bar,
Fuel, IMEP, SoMI, D, 40%D+60%B, 20%D+80%B, n–butanol Diesel Gasoline 40%D+60%B, 6 bar, 1°bTDC, vs. 220 g/kWh – 53% (I) – ICT: 56 °C, [316]
20%G+80%B, 4–6 bar, 5–1 °bTDC, CCM (B)
IMEP & EGR, Fuel, 6&30%, 10&25%, Diesel Gasoline (RON 90, Isooctane 6 bar, 30%, 50%G100 + 50%D, – – 40% (I) OT: 80 °C, [317]
97,100) ICP:1.4 bar, φ:0.6, SOI:8 °bTDC CT: 80 °C,
ICT: 40 °C,
SOI for D: 4

20
°bTDC
Fuel, SOI, EOI 70%G+30%D, 146–61°bTDC, n–heptane Isooctane – SOI:146 EOI:138 vs. SOI:66, EOI:58 – – – 3.9 bar (I) ICT:363 K, [318]
138–54°bTDC ICP:1.4 bar,
IMEP:4 bar,
EGR:45%
ICT, methanol 370–410 K, 70–100%, 0–51.5%, Diesel Methanol – HCCI (370 K, 51.5%EGR) vs. RCCI 188 g/kWh – – – ICP:1.66 bar, [319]
fraction, EGR, 6.9–7.8 bar, (370 K, 70%Methanol) (I)
IMEP,
φ, N, SOI, 0.2–0.26, 1200–2100, 300–80 °bTDC Gasoline CNG – 0.2, 2100, 240 °bTDC – – 33.5% (I) 1.9 bar (I) – [320]
L(in IMEP) 0–21 bar, Diesel – 300Nm – – – – EGR:0% [321]
SOI:10°bTDC
Pr, ICP, ICT, EGR, 0–100%, 1–2.1 bar, 320–420 K, 0–100%, Diesel Methanol – 66.5%, (1.66 bar, 419.5 K, 33.8%, 164.97 g/ – – – – [322]
SOI 0–50 °bTDC 24.4°bTDC) Vs. 0%E kWh (I)
Split Ratio (20%:80%,30%:70%,40%:60%), 24–8 Gasoline – – Pilot 40% + Main60%, 12 °bTDC – – – – ICT:298 K, [323]
(pilot:main), °bTDC vs. single injection (12 °bTDC) IMEP:4.5 bar,
SoPI ICP:1.4 bar,
L, Pr, EGR, IMEP 10–50%, 0–79.7%, 39–53%, Diesel Gasoline – 50%, 79.7%, 41.79%, 12.5% – – – – – [324]
3.6–12.5 bar,
Pr, N, BMEP, ICT, 74–90%, 4–6 bar, 345–420 K, 0–20%, Diesel Natural gas – 89%, 1300, 90%, 2000, – – – OT: 100 °C, [325]
EGR, SOMI 20–25 CAD, 4 bar, 348 K, 0%, 6 bar, 420 K, CT: 90 °C,
20 CAD 15%, 20CAD
Pr, EGR, λ, L, ICP 80–95%, 0–30%, 1.1–3.6, 3–12 bar, Diesel Natural gas – IMEP:12 bar, vs. 7 bar – – – – SOMI:15 °bTDC [326]
88–150 kPa,
IMEP, EGR, Pr, 1.58–6.5 bar, 0–47%, 50–77%, Diesel Gasoline 98RON – 3000 rpm, 3.63 bar, 32%, 55%GF – – – – – [327]
EN590
EGR, ICP, λ(1/φ) 0–30%, 1–1.7 bar, 1.6–2.0 Aromatic E30 Alkylate (20%, 1 bar, 1.8, SOMI:2°aTDC) – – – – ICT: 55 °C, [328]
Aromatic vs. E30 50/50 fuel split
by duration
(continued on next page)
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
 Table 5 (continued)

Operating condition Range of operation Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Comparison point Fuel consumption TE (I/B)* MEP bar (I/ Test condition Ref.
B)* No.
SFC SEC

IMEP 6–17 bar Diesel Natural gas – 6 bar vs. 17 bar 188 g/kWh – – – [329]
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.

(I)
SoMI, SoPI 72.5–13.5 °bTDC, 6.5 to 3.25°bTDC Diesel Natural gas – SOPI: 72.5°bTDC. 177.2 g/ – – – IMEP:12.3 bar, [330]
SOMI:4.3°bTDC kWh (I) λ:1.34,
EGR:34%
N, L, SOI 800–1900, 25–70%, 7–0°bTDC Diesel Natural gas – (1200 rpm, 5 °bTDC), 40%, vs. 70% – – – – – [331]
L
ICT, IT, IP 50–120 °C, SOI1: 80 to −180, SOI2: 100/ Gasoline – – Triple injection 5.2 bar (I) OT: 80 °C, [332]
–60, SOI3: 20, 600–800 bar SOI1: 120 °bTDC, CT: 90 °C,
ICT:50 °C, ICP:1.5 bar,
IP:600 bar vs. single injection Fuel share: 4:3:3
SoPI, Pre–fuel −11to −35 °bTDC, −500 to −240 Diesel Natural gas – −11°bTDC, −240°bTDC vs. – – – – SoMI: 4°bTDC, [333]
Injection °bTDC −500°bTDC BMEP:4.8 bar,
SoPI, SoMI, Pr, 60–40°bTDC, –40–4°bTDC, 70–80%, Diesel Gasoline – −60°bTDC, −35°bTDC, 75% – – – – IP:800 bar, [334]
diesel ratio: 70/
30,
Combustion mode RCCI/PPC/DDFS Diesel Gasoline – RCCI vs. DDFS – – – – Different [334]
conditions
Combustion mode RCCI/HCCI/CDC n–heptane Gasoline – RCCI vs. CDC 177 g/kWh – – – Different [336]
(I) conditions
Combustion mode RCCI, HCCI n–heptane Gasoline – RCCI vs. HCCI – – – – Different [337]
conditions
Combustion mode RCCI/DPI Diesel Methane – RCCI vs. DPI – – – 7.2 bar Different [338]
conditions

21
IMEP, ICP, SoMI 5.6–13.5 bar, .97–2.2 bar, 51–35°bTDC, Diesel Landfill gas Hydrogen 5.6, 0.97 bar, 35°bTDC vs. 13.5, – – – – ICT:40 °C, [339]
2.2 bar, 51°bTDC Φ:0.3
EGR:0%
Pr, SoMI, 70–85%, 17–6 °bTDC Diesel PODE Methanol 85%, 17 (M/D) vs. 12 (M/PODE) – – 30.5 – BMEP:3.4 bar, [340]
EGR:26%,
SoMI1/SoMI2 57/37°bTDC, n–heptane Iso–octane – Energy: 66%/33% – – – – SoMI1: 12.6 mg, [341]
SoMI1: 8.4 mg,
L, oxygen, 40–100%, 21–24%, WCO Ethanol – 80%, 21% vs. 24% – – 26% – Energy: 80/20 [342]
Mode RCCI, RCCI with water Diesel Hydrogen – RCCI vs. RCCI with water 240 g/kWh – 35% – PRM: 1000 [343]
Pr, SoMI1 (62%)& 82–89%, 85 & 37 °bTDC, n–heptane Iso–octane – Pr, 82% vs. 89% – – – – IMEP: 9 bar, [344]
SoMI2, EGR: 43%,
L,IP, 0.5–2.8 kW, 200–350 bar, Diesel – – 2.8 kW, 350 bar vs. CDC 0.18 g/kWh – 33% – SoPI: 54 °bTDC, [345]
EGR, Pr, SoMI, 0–30%, 70–90%, 55–5°bTDC, Diesel Natural gas HRD 15%, 90%, −15°bTDC, (NG–HRD – 32% – – – [346]
(Cetane vs. NG–diesel)
84.8)
ICT, IT 20–80 °C, 27–6 °bTDC, Diesel Ethanol – 20 °C, D80/E20, (27 vs. 6 °bTDC) – – – 4.7 bar (I) OT:80 °C, [347]
Effective CR, IVC 15.37–13.71, 140–130 °bTDC, Biodiesel Gasoline – – – – – – IVC:1.1 bar, [348]
timing, Stroke 92–91.6 mm IMEP: 3.09 bar
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404

Table 6
Emission behavior of the LTC mode engines.
Hydrocarbon Carbon monoxide Carbon Oxides of nitrogen Smoke Particulate matter Ref. No
dioxide (LTC)
LTC Reference LTC Reference (LTC) LTC Reference LTC Reference
mode mode mode mode

9.9065 g/kg 14.1209 g/kg 3.037 g/kg of 4.708 g/kg of – 2.19 g/kg of fuel 1.779 g/kg – – – [138]
of fuel of fuel fuel fuel of fuel
5 g/kWh 8.2 g/kWh 40 g/kWh 63 g/kWh – 1.5 g/kWh 7.7 g/kWh – – – [139]
2.1 g/kWh 2 g/kWh 1.6 g/kWh 2.2 g/kWh – 2.05 g/kWh 0.5 g/kWh 0.003 g/kWh 0.002 g/ – [140]
kWh
48.31 g/kg of 63.74 g/kg of 105.94 g/kg 64.59 g/kg of – 0.34 g/kg of fuel 0.61 g/kg of – – – [141]
fuel fuel of fuel fuel fuel
1.13 g/kWh 0.2 g/kWh 6.4 g/kWh 2 g/kWh – 21 g/kWh 10 g/kWh 0.2 mg/kWh 0.2 g/kWh – [142]
1920 ppm – 2340 ppm – – 25 ppm – – – – [143]
8 g/kWh 4.8 g/kWh 50 g/kWh 5 g/kWh – 0.2 g/kWh 2.8 g/kWh 0.018 FSN 0.08 FSN – [144]
650 ppm 400 ppm 1400 ppm 1100 ppm – 350 ppm 620 ppm – – 0.05 mg/l [145]
450 ppm – 0.11% – – 470 ppm – – – – [146]
– – – – – 0.0068 g/kWh – – – – [147]
0.371 g/kWh – 88.543 g/ – – 1.933 g/kWh – 0.002 g/kWh – – [148]
kWh
4.45 g/kWh 8 g/kWh 5.06 g/kWh 9 g/kWh – 0.407 g/kWh 0.55 g/kWh 0.0024 0.005 g/ – [149]
kWh
2.92 g/kWh 5.5 g/kWh 13.27 g/kWh 38 g/kWh – 0.8 g/kWh 0.1 g/kWh 0.001 g/kWh 0.001 g/ – [150]
kWh
–. – – – – 0.24 g/kWh – – – – [151]
3222 ppm – 0.0821% – – 6.62 ppm – – – – [152]
105 g/kWh – – – – 0.19 g/kWh – – – – [153]
7 g/kWh 6.8 g/kWh 35 g/kWh 14 g/kWh – 0.5 g/kWh 13 g/kWh 0.02 FSN 0.2FSN – [154]
5 g/kWh – 5.8 g/kWh – – 0.76 g/kWh – 0.0 g/kWh – – [155]
245 ppm 40 ppm 2630 ppm 1380 ppm – 30 ppm 250 ppm – – – [156]
17 g/kWh – 14 g/kWh – – 0.03 g/kWh – 0.0004 g/kWh – – [157]
– – – – 0.002 g/kWh – 0.011 g/kWh – – [158]
15 g/kg fuel – 30 g/kg fuel – – 3.2 g/kg fuel – 0.0 – – [159]
8 g/kWh – 15.8 mg – – 0.01 g/kWh – 0.002 g/kWh – – [159]
15 g/kWh 8 g/kWh 10.5 g/kWh 7.5 g/kWh – 8 g/kWh 10.5 g/kWh 0.006 FSN 0.075 FSN – [160]
2000 ppm – 2300 ppm – – 4 ppm – – – – [161]
1.44 g/kWh 0.097 g/kWh 0.321 g/kWh 0.016 g/kWh – 10.88 g/kWh 18.42 g/kWh 0.421 g/kWh 0.004 g/ – [162]
kWh
480 ppm 50 ppm 0.15% 0.05% 2.7% 100 ppm 300 ppm – – – [163]
20 g/kWh – – – – 0.01 g/kWh – – – – [164]
260 ppm – 0.3% – – 2 ppm – – – – [165]
– – 0.166 g/kWh – – 0.138 g/kWh – – – – [166]
12 g/kWh – 20 g/kWh – – 0.002 g/kWh – 0.0 – – [167]
– – 16 g/kWh 13 g/kWh – 12 g/kWh 14 g/kWh – – – [168]
1.7 g/kWh – 1.8 g/kWh – 0.02 g/kWh – 0.012 g/kWh – – [169]
10 g/kWh – 24 g/kWh – – 0.05 g/kWh – 0.0002 g/kWh – – [171]
– – – – – 14 g/kWh – 13 mg/m3 – 50 mg/hp hr [172]
– – – – – 0.3 g/kg fuel 0.02 g/kg 1.78 g/kg fuel 0.34 g/kg – [173]
fuel fuel
9 g/kWh – 7 g/kWh – – – – – – [174]
8 g/kWh – 5.5 g/kWh – – 6.4 g/kWh – – – – [177]
2.72 g/kWh 20 g/kWh 1.22 g/kWh 31.7 g/kWh – 0.016 g/kWh 0.01 g/kWh 0.0012 g/kWh – – [178]
14 ppm – – – – 470 ppm – 2.3 FSN – – [179]
3700 ppm – – – – 10 ppm – – – – [180]
9 g/kWh – – – – 0.09 g/kWh – 0.0005 g/kWh – – [181]
0.5 g/kWh – 2 g/kWh – – 6 g/kWh – 0.0008 g/kWh – – [182]
15 g/kWh – 13 g/kWh – – 0.2 g/kWh – – – – [183]
65 g/kWh – – – 1.7 g/kWh – – – – [186]
– – 1500 ppm – – – – – – – [187]
– – – – – 0.4 g/kWh – – – – [188]
30 mg/s – 40 mg/s – – 1.8 mg/s – – – 0.004 mg/s [189]
10 g/kg fuel 8 g/kg fuel 25 g/kg fuel 40 g/kg fuel – 1.6 g/kg fuel 0.2 g/kg fuel – – – [190]
– – – – – 0.03 g/kWh 0.03 g/kWh – – – [191]
500 ppm – 850 ppm – – 0.13 g/kWh – 0.02 g/kWh – – [192]
440 ppm – 8200 ppm – – 430 ppm – – – – [193]
13.5 g/kWh 0.6 g/kWh 6.6 g/kWh 0.6 g/kWh – 2.7 g/kWh 19 g/kWh – – 0.005 g/kWh [195]
5.52 g/kWh 11.77 g/kWh 11 g/kWh 15.1 g/kWh – 0.035 g/kWh 0.01 FSN – – [196]
5969 ppm 848 ppm 2115 ppm 1184 ppm – 53 ppm 48 ppm 15.74 mg/m3 – – [197]
33 ppm 0.12% vol. –– – 600 ppm – 28% – – [198]
– – – – – 12 ppm 80 ppm 9 mg/m3 20 mg/m3 – [199]
– – – – – 470 ppm 640 ppm 0.013 FSN 0.012 FSN – [200]
0.45 g/kWh 1 g/kWh 7 g/kWh 12 g/kWh – 5 g/kWh 4 g/kWh 4.5 g/kWh 5 g/kWh – [201]
4100 ppm – 3050 ppm – – 410 ppm – – – – [202]
60 ppm 50 ppm 400 ppm 300 ppm – 300 ppm 320 ppm 1.1% 1% – [203]
4 g/kWh 32 g/kWh 7 g/kWh 90 g/kWh – 45 g/kWh 7 g/kWh – – – [204]
1.8 g/kWh 1.2 g/kWh 30 g/kWh 40 g/kWh 0.4 g/kWh 10 g/kWh 10 g/kWh 1.7% 0.2% – [94]
(continued on next page)

22
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404

Table 6 (continued)

Hydrocarbon Carbon monoxide Carbon Oxides of nitrogen Smoke Particulate matter Ref. No
dioxide (LTC)
LTC Reference LTC Reference (LTC) LTC Reference LTC Reference
mode mode mode mode

360 ppm – 0.36% vol – – 565 ppm – 24% – – [206]

– – – – – 590 ppm – – – – [207]
– – – – – 280 ppm 270 ppm 0.02 mg/m3 8 mg/m3 – [208]
30 ppm – 0.1% – – 440 ppm – – – – [209]
75 ppm 25 ppm 0.1% 0.02% – 200 ppm 210 ppm 0.18 m–1 0.24 m–1 – [210]
10 g/kg fuel – 20 g/kg fuel – – 32 g/kg fuel – 0.01 g/kg fuel – – [212]
1.9 g/kWh – 10.2 g/kWh – – 6.4 g/kWh – 5.6 g/kWh – – [213]
– – – – – 1.5 g/kg fuel – 3.1 g/kg fuel – – [214]
37 ppm 35% 0.08% 0.1% 5.9% 360 ppm 500 ppm 60% 76% – [217]
325 ppm 225 ppm 0.22% 0.14% – 670 ppm 1400 ppm – – – [218]
1.8 g/kWh – 22 g/kWh – – 138 ppm – 0.23 FSN – – [219]
0.3 g/kWh – 2 g/kWh – – 1.4 g/kWh – 0.17 g/kWh – – [220]
1.16 g/kWh 0.8 g/kWh 14 g/kWh 9 g/kWh – 3 g/kWh 4 g/kWh 6.1% 8% – [221]
1.27 g/kWh – 7.6 g/kWh – – 0.94 g/kWh – 0.09 g/kWh – – [222]
0.069 ppmc 0.403 ppmc 847 ppm 751 ppm – 847 ppm 751 ppm – – 0.069 FSN [223]
0.6 g/kWh 0.5 g/kWh 5 g/kWh 1.4 g/kWh – 2 g/kWh 8.4 g/kWh 1.5 BSU 3.5 BSU – [224]
3 g/kWh – 6 g/kWh – – 5 g/kWh 6% – – [225]
9 g/kg fuel 20 g/kg fuel 32 g/kg fuel 92 g/kg fuel – 3.5 g/kg fuel 3 g/kg fuel 0.05 FSN – 27 g/kg fuel [226]
0.8 g/kWh 0.4 g/kWh 2.2 g/kWh 4.4 g/kWh – 1.2 g/kWh 5.5 g/kWh 12% 66% – [227]
2 g/kWh 0.8 g/kWh 13 g/kWh 8 g/kWh – 10 g/kWh 6.5 g/kWh 7% 38% – [228]
14 g/kg fuel – 75 g/kg fuel – – 0.09 g/kg fuel – 2.2 g/kg fuel – – [229]
3.8 g/kWh – 15.8 g/kWh – – 13 g/kWh – 0.01 g/kWh – – [230]
14 g/kWh 14.5 g/kWh 220 g/kWh 20 g/kWh – 0.01 g/kWh 2.5 g/kWh 0.002 g/kWh 0.056 g/ – [231]
kWh (HCCI)
13 g/kWh 14.5 g/kWh 140 g/kWh 20 g/kWh – 0.4 g/kWh 2.5 g/kWh 0.03 g/kWh 0.056 g/ – [231]
kWh (PCCI)
33 g/kWh 14.5 g/kWh 310 g/kWh 20 g/kWh – 1.4 g/kWh 2.5 g/kWh 0.01 g/kWh 0.056 g/ – [231]
kWh (RCCI)
– – – – – 0.1 g/kWh – 0.002 FSN – – [232]
– – – – – 0.7 g/kWh – 0.2 g/kWh – – [233]
– – 4500 ppm – 2% 25 ppm – – – 0.002 mg/m3 [234]
– – 0.02 g/kg – – 0.5 g/kg fuel – 0.003 g/kg fuel – – [235]
fuel
14.93 g/kWh 2.169 g/kWh 26.12 g/kWh 7.23 g/kWh – 2.16 g/kWh – 0.01 g/kWh 12.46 g/ – [236]
kWh
24 g/kWh 12 g/kWh 30 g/kWh 39 g/kWh – – – – – – [237]
0.4 g/kWh – 14 g/kWh – – 0.6 g/kWh – 0.005 g/kWh – – [238]
0.1 g/kWh – 0.2 g/kWh – – 4 g/kWh – 0.04 g/kWh – – [239]
– – – – – 0.37 g/kWh – 0.003 g/kWh – – [240]
1750 ppm – 3400 ppm – – 0.6 g/kWh – 0.4 g/kWh – – [241]
21 g/kWh 2 g/kWh 30 g/kWh 7 g/kWh – < 0.02 g/kWh 4.2 g/kWh – – – [242]
36 g/kg fuel – 26 g/kWh – – 0.04 g/kg fuel – – – – [243]
– – – – – 0.5 g/kWh – 0.001 g/kWh – – [244]
– – – – – 0.1 g/kWh – – – – [245]
4 g/kWh 0.04 g/kWh 2 g/kWh 0.2 g/kWh – 0.1 g/kWh 15 g/kWh 0.004 m–1 0.02m−1 – [246]
– – – – – 90 ppm 110 ppm 0.38 FSN 0.52 FSN – [247]
25 ppm – 300 ppm – – – – – – – [248]
– – – – – 225 ppm – – – – [256]
0.13 g/kWh 0.19 g/kWh 0.024 g/kWh 0.027 g/kWh – – – – – – [257]
20 ppm 14 ppm 0.02% 0.01% – ↓97% – ↓98% – – [258]
20 g/kWh – 27 g/kWh – – 57 g/kWh – – – – [259]
46 ppm 28 ppm 0.06% 0.04% – 800 ppm 800 ppm 5% 27% – [261]
0.14 g/kWh – 0.04 g/kWh – – 0.25 g/kWh 0.01 g/kWh – – [262]
1200 ppm – 0.3% – – – – – – – [263]
↑ 2.14% – ↑55% – – ↓60% – ↑7.67 – – [265]
100 ppm 300 ppm 1% 4.5 ppm – 35 ppm 20 ppm – – [266]
7 g/kg fuel – 140 g/kg fuel – – 0.1 g/kg fuel – 0.9 g/kg fuel – – [267]
2500 ppm – 480 ppm – – < 10 ppm – – – – [269]
0.8 g/kWh 0.4 g/kWh 7 g/kWh 1.7 g/kWh – 1.5 g/kWh 9.3 g/kWh 0.5BSU 3.5HSU – [270]
590 ppm 180 ppm 0.14% 0.07% 7.2% 21 ppm 22 ppm 13 BSU 5 HSU – [271]
280 ppm 270 ppm 0.8% 0.79% – 20 ppm 3 ppm 0.4 m–1 0.001m−1 – [272]
225 ppm 350 ppm 0.45% 0.8% – < 2 ppm 0 – – – [273]
260 ppm – 0.42% – – 110 ppm – – – – [274]
4 g/kWh 2 g/kWh – 2.3 g/kWh 0.1% – – [275]
15.38 g/ 12.85 g/kWh 148 g/ 123.32 g/kWh – 0.133 g/kWh 0.095 g/kWh 6.8 g/kg–fuel 196.3 g/ – [277]
kg–fuel kg–fuel kWh
5 g/kWh 0.3 g/kWh 48 g/kWh 36 g/kWh – 44.3 g/kWh 5.9 g/kWh 1.8% 12.4% – [278]
21 g/kg–fuel 71.1 g/ 13.2 g/ 45.5 g/kg–fuel 2.31 g/ 4.92 g/kg–fuel 0.08 g/ – – – [278]
kg–fuel kg–fuel kg–fuel kg–fuel
200 ppm – 0.1% – – 120 ppm – – – – [280]
– – – – – 20 ppm – 3 FSN – – [281]
93 ppm 16 ppm 1439 ppm 34 ppm – 32 ppm 1376 ppm 0.007FSN 0.126 ppm – [282]
(continued on next page)

23
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404

Table 6 (continued)

Hydrocarbon Carbon monoxide Carbon Oxides of nitrogen Smoke Particulate matter Ref. No
dioxide (LTC)
LTC Reference LTC Reference (LTC) LTC Reference LTC Reference
mode mode mode mode

1 g/kWh 0.01 g/kWh 3 g/kWh 0.1 g/kWh 570 g/ 2.8 g/kWh 4.7 g/kWh 0.13 FSN 0.05 FSN – [283]
kWh
20 g/kg–fuel – 32 g/kg–fuel – – 2.4 g/kg–fuel – 2.5FSN – – [285]
980 ppm – 1070 ppm – – – – 0.47 FSN – – [286]
8.7 g/kWh – 27.5 g/kWh – – 0.42 g/kWh – 0.09 FSN – – [287]
180 ppm 130 ppm 1700 ppm 1150 ppm – 1.4 g/kWh 1.8 g/kWh 0.012 FSN 0.01 FSN – [290]
0.3 g/kWh 0.2 g/kWh 3.5 g/kWh 3 g/kWh – 2 g/kWh 1 g/kWh 0.001 g/kWh 0.14 g/kWh – [291]
1.8 g/kWh 1.4 g/kWh 16 g/kWh 14 g/kWh 0.8 kg/ 6 g/kWh 6.4 g/kWh – – 1000 ng/m3 [292]
kWh
– – 70 g/kg–fuel – – – – 1.2 g/kg–fuel – – [293]
3.7 g/kWh – 7.7 g/kWh – – – – 7.8 FSN – – [294]
16 g/kWh 24 g/kWh 100 g/kWh 89 g/kWh – 33 g/kWh 21 g/kWh – – – [295]
– – – – – 0.6 g/kWh 0.9 g/kWh – – – [296]
330 ppm – – – – 30 ppm – 1 FSN – – [297]
0.5 g/kWh – 2 g/kWh – – 6 g/kWh – 0.003 g/kWh – 0.5 E+008 cm−3 [298]
~0.001 g/ – 1 g/kWh – – 0.01 g/kWh – 0.032 g/kWh – – [299]
kWh
16 g/kWh 9 g/kWh 10 g/kWh 8 g/kWh – 2.8 g/kWh 7.5 g/kWh – – 0.007 g/kWh [300]
0.95 g/kWh 0.85 g/kWh 45 g/kWh 35 g/kWh – 0.2 g/kWh 0.2 g/kWh 0.75 g/kWh 1.3 g/kWh – [301]
430 ppm 410 ppm 0.16% 0.15% 6.7% 480 ppm 720 ppm – – – [302]
4.7 g/kWh 5.8 g/kWh 2.5 g/kWh 3 g/kWh – 0.26 g/kWh 0.34 g/kWh – – 0.037 g/kWh [303]
– – 0.177 g/ 2.84E–07 kg/ – 4.67 g/kg–fuel 0.00756 g/ – – – [304]
kg–fuel kg–fuel kg–fuel
20 ppm – 0.03% – – 200 ppm 210 ppm – – 20 106/cm3 [305]
– – – – – – – 0.5 g/kWh – – [306]
150 ppm 330 ppm 3% 6% – 24 ppm 18 ppm – – – [307]
– – 90 g/kWh 8 g/kWh – 10 g/kWh 15 g/kWh 0.008 g/kWh 0.078 g/ – [308]
kWh
2.63 g/kWh 2.99 g/kWh 34 g/kWh 43 g/kWh – 0.05 g/kWh 0.03 g/kWh 1.19 FSN 1.94 FSN – [310]
0.5 g/kWh 0.9 g/kWh 5 g/kWh 7 g/kWh – – – – – – [311]
17.5 g/kWh – 30 g/kWh – – – – – – – [312]
– – 0.1 g/kWh – – 8.4 g/kWh – – – 0.001 g/kWh [313]
10 g/kg–fuel – 40 g/kg–fuel – – 1 g/kg–fuel – – – 0.1 FSN [314]
4.5 g/kWh 1 g/kWh 6 g/kWh – – 0.5 g/kWh 1.1 g/kWh 0.1 g/kWh 0.8 g/kWh – [316]
5.6 g/kWh 2 g/kWh 20 g/kWh 7 g/kWh – 0.35 g/kWh 0.2 g/kWh 0.01m−1 0.065 m–1 – [317]
48 g/kWh – 28 g/kWh 33 g/kWh – 0.03 g/kWh 0.01 g/kWh – – – [318]
700 ppm/kW – 2700 ppm/ – – 150 ppm/kW – – – – [319]
kW
0.114 g/kWh – 5.27 g/kWh – – 0.073 g/kWh – 0.00002 g/kWh – – [320]
0.6 g/kWh 1 g/kWh 12 g/kWh 10 g/kWh 4 g/kWh 7.8 g/kWh – 1.5 g/kWh 2.2 g/kWh – [321]
1.8 g/kWh – 0.2 g/kWh – – – – – – – [324]
42 g/kWh 23 g/kWh 7.7 g/kWh 5.7 g/kWh – 5.4 g/kWh 3.7 g/kWh – – – [325]
0.1 g/kWh 0.3 g/kWh 0.1 g/kWh 0.1 g/kWh – 0.26 g/kWh 0.01 g/kWh 0.36 g/kWh 0.001 g/ – [326]
kWh
0.09 g/km – 0.12 g/km –– – – – – – – [327]
1.3 g/kWh 0.8 g/kWh 2.4 g/kWh 2.2 g/kWh – 1 g/kWh 2 g/kWh 0.72 FSN 0.01 FSN – [328]
0.13 g/kWh 0.04 g/kWh 0.68 g/kWh 0.7 g/kWh – 2.7 g/kWh 4.6 g/kWh – – – [329]
1214 ppm 337 ppm – 104 ppm 0.2 FSN – [330]
0.6 g/kWh 3 g/kWh 2.5 g/kWh 1.5 g/kWh – 2.5 g/kWh 2.5 g/kWh 0.004 g/kWh 0.004 g/ – [331]
kWh
1650 ppm 900 ppm 4300 ppm 3800 ppm – 50 ppm 50 ppm – – – [332]
1.3 g/kWh 2 g/kWh 1.5 g/kWh 2.8 g/kWh – 0.4 g/kWh 0.2 g/kWh – – – [333]
2.25 g/kWh 2.15 g/kWh 2.5 g/kWh 5.06 g/kWh – 0.015 g/kWh 0.291 g/kWh 0.025 FSN 0.106 FSN – [335]
12.5 g/ 1.6 g/kg–fuel 128.6 g/ 17.4 g/kg–fuel – 0.2 g/kg–fuel 18.4 g/ 0.02 FSN 0.09 FSN – [336]
kg–fuel kg–fuel kg–fuel
– – 10 g/kg–fuel 4 g/kg–fuel – 0.05 g/kg–fuel 0 – – – [337]
0.3 g/kWh 6.3 g/kWh 2 g/kWh 6.5 g/kWh – 10 g/kWh 6 g/kWh 0.03 FSN 0.02 FSN – [338]
– – 1.62 g/kWh 1.05 g/kWh – 0.18 g/kWh 13.5 g/kWh – – – [339]
3 g/kWh 1.6 g/kWh 5.5 g/kWh 2.4 g/kWh 0.5 g/kWh 0.7 g/kWh 0.016 g/kWh 0.006 g/ – [340]
kWh
125 ppm 120 ppm 0.35% 0.23% – 190 ppm 350 ppm 57% 38% – [341]
– – – – – 1340 ppm 700 ppm – – – [342]
1.2 1.9 3 6 – 0.05 0.01 0.006 0.008 – [343]
– – – – – 11 g/kWh 10.5 g/kWh mg3 mg3 – [346]
1.25 2.1
m m
1.5 g/kWh 3.5 g/kWh 7 g/kWh 15 g/kWh 6.5 g/kWh 5 g/kWh [347]

Operating condition of the engine is mentioned in Table 5 along with 3. Influence of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
the comparison condition. The reference condition was taken from the
parameter modifications if the CCM is not available in literature work. Liu et al. reported that at 0% EGR rate, RCCI mode shows a double
Tables 2–4 are presented in the appendix file. peak HRR. N-butanol (B)/biodiesel (BD) RCCI traces a maximum and

24
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404

Table 7
Combustion behavior of the LTC mode engines.
In–cylinder temperature In–cylinder pressure Heat release rate (J/ Ignition delay (deg) Combustion efficiency Ringing Combustion Ref. no
(K) (bar) deg) intensity duration

LTC Reference LTC Reference LTC Reference LTC Reference LTC Reference – –
mode mode mode mode mode

1603.01 1559.34 78 75 125 108 – – – – [138]

1420 – 105 115 130 230 91% 88% – – [139]
2350 2250 – – 1200 – 24 31 98.7% 98.4% – – [140]
2000 – 64 – 60 – – – – – MW2 – [141]
2
m
– – 95 93 – – 7.5 6.4 – – [142]
2400 1650 73.5 74 100 – – – 98% 98.5% – – [143]
– – 55 42 25 15 – – – – MW2 – [144]
2.2
m
1350 1900 106 90 60 24 18 11 – – – 97 CAD [145]
2000 1750 78 63 80 64 – – – – – 20 °CA [146]
1850 126 104 [147]
1800 1600 155 150 450 380 – – – – MW2 25 °CA [148]
7.6
m
2050 – 110 – 350 – – – – – – – [149]
1870 104 250 [150]
1800 – 96 – 100 – – – – – MW2 4 °CA50 [151]
4.7
m
– – 96 – 92 – – – – – 3.56 – [152]
– – 144 140 220 200 – – – – MW2 – [153]
2.22
m
– – 120 108 220 140 13.5 10.5 – – – 23.5 °CA [154]
2260 2290 – – 450 290 – – – – – – [155]
– – 45 37 50 29 – – – – – – [156]
1890 – 63 – 80 – – – – – MW2 – [157]
1.3
m
1800 2800 140 136 850 830 – – – – MW2 – [158]
2.8
m
– – 98 96 130 200 – – – – – [159]
1630 – 100 – 170 – – – – – MW2 – [159]
17.6
m
1710 – 126 – 170 – 10 – 95% – – – [160]
– – 87 – 300 – – – 94% 95% – 5 °CA50 [161]
– – 80 78 75 100 – – – – – 8.7 °CA90 [162]
– – 93 96 – – – – – – MW2 – [164]
5
m
– – 57 – 120 – – – – – – 9 °CA [165]
– – 140.9 141.8 420 – – – – – MW2 – [166]
2.59
m
– – 86 – 70 – – – −96.9% – – – [167]
– – 118 116 40 40 5 – 97% – – 11 °CA [168]
– – 126 128 600 700 – – – – – – [169]
– – 85 – 380 – – – 98% – – – [170]
– – 52 – 41 – – – – – – – [171]
2242 – 238 – 1300 – – – – – – – [173]
– – 64 66 83 94 – – 93% – – – [174]
– – 156 – 540 – – – – – MW2 – [175]
7
m
– – 45 – 130 – – – 82% – – – [176]
– – 120 – 200 – – – – – – – [177]
1830 – 132 – 428 – – – – – MW2 10 °CA50 [178]
0.9
m
– – 57 – – – – – – – – – [179]
– – 60 – 18 – – – – – MW2 [180]
0.52
m
– – 83 81 68 77 – – – – – – [181]
– – 76 – 34 – – – 95% – – – [182]
– – 94 – 58 – – – – – – – [183]
– – 64 59 250 190 – – – – – – [184]
1831 – 112 – 400 – – – – – MW2 – [185]
2.36
m
900 – 40 – 10 – – – – – – [186]
2200 2050 92 88 145 130 – – 99% – – 6.5 °CA10–90 [190]
– – 94 92 90 60 – – 93.2% – – – [191]
– – 112 160 – – – – 98% – – – [192]
– – 73.5 73 – – – – – – – – [194]
– – 72 69 44 150 – – 98% – – – [195]
– – – – 37 43 – – – – – – [196]
– – 35 56 50 45 – – – – – 28.76° [197]
– – 63 55 90 60 – – – – – – [200]
– – 70 71 250 190 – – – – – – [201]
– – 63 – 35 – – – – – – – [202]
– – 65 – 102 – – – – – – – [203]
(continued on next page)

25
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404

Table 7 (continued)

In–cylinder temperature In–cylinder pressure Heat release rate (J/ Ignition delay (deg) Combustion efficiency Ringing Combustion Ref. no
(K) (bar) deg) intensity duration

LTC Reference LTC Reference LTC Reference LTC Reference LTC Reference – –
mode mode mode mode mode

– – 74 98 – – – – – – – – [204]
– – 43 – 50 – – – – – – 19 CAD [94]
– – 73 – – – – – – – – – [206]
1870 – 79 – 100 98 – – – – – – [207]
– – 74 78 – – – – – – – 4 °CA50 [208]
1710 – 68 – 88 104 – – – – – – [209]
– – 52 50 94 155 – – – – – – [210]
1630 1620 63 60 135 125 – – – – – – [211]
– – 96 98 130 240 – – – – – – [212]
– – 71 – 160 – – – – – – 13 CAD [213]
– – 122 – 170 – – – – – – – [214]
– – 106 – – – – – – – – – [215]
2150 2130 120 105 130 126 – – – – – – [218]
– – 78 73 52 75 – – – – – – [219]
2600 2700 58 60 45 47 – – – – – 17 CAD [220]
– – 71 – 230 – – – – – – 18 CAD [221]
– – 66 – 80 – – – – – – – [222]
– – 60 – 78 – – – – – – – [223]
– – 28 29 15 15 – – – – – – [224]
– – 54 – 125 – – – – – – – [225]
– – – – 100 – – – – – – – [226]
– – 67 – 78 – – – – – – – [227]
– – 72 – 77 – 6.54 7.42 – – – 37.1°CA/ [228]
4.83 ms
1380 1370 108 110 78 75 – – – – – – [229]
1360 1330 82 76 135 157 – – – – MW2 – [230]
1
m
– – 56 38 68 25 – – – – – – [231]
– – 47 38 38 25 – – – – – – [231]
– – 46 38 44 25 – – – – – – [231]
– – 140 – 230 – – – – – – – [232]
– – 150 – 160 – 6°CA – – – – – [233]
– – 48 46 30 33 – – – – – – [234]
– – 178 – 1900 – – – – – – – [235]
1320 – 82 – 78 – 22 33 89% 91% – 8 CA [237]
– – 160 120 160 50 2.9 ms – 96% – – 1 ms [238]
1500 1530 104 106 – – – – – – – – [239]
– – 88 – 37 – – – – – – 8 CA [240]
– – 130 – 111 – – – – – – 5CA [241]
– – 76 82 50 150 – – – – MW2 – [242]
2
m
– – 96 – 76 – – – – – MW2 8CA [243]
1.8
m
– – 74 – 154 – 32.5 (1st – – – – 9(1st SOI) [244]
SOI)
– – 84 – 42 – – – – – 4 MW/m2 – [245]
– – 120 – 300 – – – – – – 21 CA [246]
– – – – 150 – – – – – – – [247]
– – 45 – 135 – – – – – – – [248]
– – 80 – 75 – – – – – – – [249]
– – 66 – 140 – – – – – – – [252]
– – 63 – 70 – 3 ms – – – – – [253]
– – 110 – 1500 – – – – – – – [254]
1700 – 46 45 600 – – – – – – – [258]
– – 80 70 – – – – 98% 94% MW2 8 °CA [259]
7.5
m
– – 57 – 30 – – – – – – – [260]
– – 72 64 88 80 – – – – – – [261]
– – 57 – – – – – – – MW2 – [263]
5
m
– – 100 102 74 – – – – – – 25 [265]
– – 35 – 140 – – – – – – – [266]
1700 – 67 48 80 38 1 ms – – – – 7 [268]
– – 200 – – – – – – – – – [269]
– – 55 67 46 67 – – – – – – [270]
– – 42 50 33 45 – – – – – – [270]
1540 – – – 56 – – – – – – – [272]
1350 1100 44 42 13 50 – – 90% 92% – – [273]
1700 – 50 – 150 – – – – – – 28 °CA [274]
– – 93 – – – – – – – – – [275]
1450 – 52 – 100 – 11 – – – – – [276]
1300 1350 108 110 64 70 6.2 6 – – – 14 [277]
(continued on next page)

26
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404

Table 7 (continued)

In–cylinder temperature In–cylinder pressure Heat release rate (J/ Ignition delay (deg) Combustion efficiency Ringing Combustion Ref. no
(K) (bar) deg) intensity duration

LTC Reference LTC Reference LTC Reference LTC Reference LTC Reference – –
mode mode mode mode mode

– – 61 – 50 – – – 94% 98% – – [278]

– – – – – – – – 98.8% 95.7% – – [279]
1950 – 82 – 94 – – – – – – – [280]
– – – – 60 – – – – – – – [281]
– – 146 165 180 120 2.83 ms 1 ms 97.51% 99.9% – 1.04 ms [282]
– – 160 – 500 – – – 98% – – – [283]
– – 47 – 76 – – – – – – 7.6CAD [284]
1800 – 36 – 70 – – – – – – – [288]
1370 1280 – – 200 250 – – – – – – [290]
– – – – – – 9.8 CA – – – – – [291]
– – 64 63 230 210 – – – – – 12 CAD [292]
1800 – 90 – 105 – – – – – – – [294]
1900 2200 75 100 27 28 – – – – – – [295]
1580 1650 98 118 400 320 – – – – – – [298]
1430 – 160 – 280 – – – – – – – [299]
– – – – 52 110 – – – – – 4 CA50 [300]
– – 64 68 106 96 15 13.2 96% 97.2% – 20.5 deg. [301]
– – 72 68 74 68 8E–05 s 1.6E–04 s – – – 108 CAD [302]
– – 50 – 15 – 11.4 – – – – – [303]
– – 175 150 250 130 – – – – – – [304]
– – – – – – 13.5 – – – – 15 CA50 [305]
– – 88 – 170 – – – – – – – [306]
– – 34 37 150 160 – – – – – – [307]
1800 1860 – – 70 80 6 9 – – – – [308]
– – 72 75 105 180 – – – – – 4 CA50 [311]
– – 70 – 50 – 8 – 91.5% – – – [312]
– – 140 – 180 – – – – – – – [313]
– – 70 51 80 45 – – – – – – [314]
– – 75 73 97 60 – – – – – – [315]
1540 – 85 86 250 125 – – – – 2 – [316]
– – 62 68 250 210 18 14 95% 97.6% – 28 deg. [317]
– – 72 73 300 380 – – – – – – [318]
1700 1500 – – 90 60 – – – – 4.3 – [319]
– – 35 – 15 – – – 73% – – 15 CAD [320]
– – 92 – 120 – – – – – – – [321]
– – 92 94 135 140 – – – – 8.975 – [322]
– – 70 90 50 140 – – – – – 43.4 CAD [323]
– – – – 480 – – – – – – – [324]
– – 71 97 34 68 – – – – – – [325]
– – 108 126 82 84 – – – – – – [328]
– – 152.5 – – – – – 98.5% – – 11.6 CAD [330]
– – 130 – 330 – – – – – – 25 CAD [331]
– – 78 58 75 30 – – – – – 22 CAD [333]
1300 – – – 320 – – – – – – – [334]
– – 64 62 30 55 – – – – – – [336]
– – 88 91 550 480 – – [337]
– – 72 64 180 200 – – – – – 6 (CA50) CAD [338]
– – 70 158 198 420 – – – – – 5 (CA50) CAD [339]
– – 60 68 140 180 24 18 96 95.5 – 14 [340]
– – 42 – 180 – – – – – – – [341]
– – – – – – 13 11 – – – 47 [342]
2400 2000 105 102 – – – – – – – – [343]
– – 140 130 600 540 – – – – – – [344]
1400 1500 55 52 24 27 4.5 6 – – – 33 [345]
– – 100 98 74 70 – – – – – 2 (CA50) [346]
1450 – 80 50 – – 22 18 – – – – [347]

earliest HRR than the dimethyl ether (DME)/biodiesel RCCI mode. At
30% EGR rate, SOC is retarded and peak HRR increased, and the ap-
parent premixed combustion and diffusion combustion phasing exist in
the HRR curve. Augmentation of EGR rate increases the chemical ig-
nition delay. Longer ignition delay period has been observed as 13.5
CAD for ethanol/biodiesel RCCI at 30% EGR which is 7.5 CAD for no
EGR condition. Ethanol has higher ON which increased the physical
ignition delay period. Combustion duration was 23.5 and 28 CAD for
80% premixed ratio ethanol/biodiesel RCCI and neat biodiesel mode
respectively at 30% EGR rate which is 25 CAD at no EGR. Maximum
(80%) premixed ratio (Pr) is limited by the peak pressure rise rate
resulting from prolonged ignition delay period [154]. Wing et al. in-
vestigated the effect of EGR, premixed ratio and BMEP on PCCI mode.
Maximum cylinder gas temperature is increased with the augmentation
of DME premixed fuel. Before the diesel fuel diffusion combustion, the
DME combustion (HCCI) increased the cylinder gas temperature re-
sulting in lower ignition delay and early SOC of HRF. Peak cylinder gas
temperature becomes higher when the HRR occurs at the end com-
pression stroke. NOx formation is suppressed with the addition of DME
as a premixing fuel (up to 40% Pr). Substitution of premixed fuel pro-
duces a homogeneous charge which reduces the fuel-rich region
thereby reduced NOx formations. This state generates more HC and CO

27
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
emissions and it becomes more if cooled EGR is employed due to
postponed combustion phasing and it could be reduced by boosting of
intake air temperature or after-treatment techniques [211]. Girish et al.
stated that the EGR contains triatomic molecules (water vapor and
carbon dioxide) which increased the specific heat capacity of the cy-
linder charge. This charge mixture absorbed more heat energy as a heat
sink during compression and reduced the maximum in-cylinder gas
temperature. The substitution of EGR retards the location of auto-ig-
nition point. The CO, HC, NOx and soot emissions for 30% EGR rate
were ↑73.6%, ↑58.8%, ↓50% and ↓40% compared to that of no EGR
rate. PCCI mode has 70.13% and 50.9% more CO and HC emissions
than the CCM due to the premixed charge and wall wetting. Vaporizer
(120 °C) improves the fuel evaporation and hot EGR enhanced the cy-
linder gas temperature thereby reduced the soot emission (lean mix-
ture) otherwise soot increases with EGR rise. Swirl and spray pattern
are producing better air and fuel mixing, and the turbulence combus-
tion reduces unburned fuel emissions [224].
Wang et al. reported on RCCI mode, ISFC slightly reduced first and
then increased with the augmentation of EGR but it drastically rose
after 45% EGR rate. Due to the higher charge dilution, availability of
oxygen molecules inside the engine cylinder is reduced which increased
the fuel supply to get an equivalent output power. Increase EGR rate
increased the IMEP at typical operating conditions up to 45% EGR.
Peak gas pressure is decreased with an increase of EGR rate and re-
tarded the combustion phasing. However, high EGR level leads to
longer ignition delay which causes a rapid burning or deteriorates the
combustion process. Increased premixed fuel and retarded SoMI pro-
duces a similar effect on the cylinder pressure and HRR due to charge
homogeneity and HRF combustion initiations [149]. Liu et al. stated
that the maximum indicated thermal efficiency (47.5%) was observed
at 50% EGR rate with 45% premixed ratio. Elevated in-cylinder charge
temperature with better-premixed fuel led to higher fuel conversion
efficiency and reduced fuel consumption. Reduction in CO emission has
been observed with advancing of the SOI timings. Retarded SOI (aTDC)
Fig. 4. Effects of EGR on engine-out emissions.
28
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
resulting in postponed combustion phasing with lower in-cylinder
temperature which diminished the HC and CO oxidations. Soot emis-
sion is increased with retarded SoMI timings because of the lower
combustion temperature which deteriorates the soot oxidation. N-bu-
tanol/biodiesel RCCI has more soot emissions compared to ethanol/
biodiesel and dimethylfuran/biodiesel RCCI modes due to the higher
boiling point and air-fuel ratio of the n-butanol (117.7 °C & 11.5:1;
Table 2). It could be reduced by advancing the SoMI timing (10 CAD
bTDC) and keeping <50% premixed fuel fraction to ensure the oxygen
[154]. Bae et al. reported on PCCI engine and concluded that an in-
crease EGR rate (up to 50%) increased IMEP because of the residual gas
and its higher specific heat capacity. Primary soot particles are smaller
sizes (15–40 nm), not differentiable and their confines tend to be un-
clear, and then it coagulated (growth) to soot. Soot is composed of vast
clumps of carbonaceous material with irregular shapes, varying from
0.7 μm to 1.2 μm in size. Cycle-by-cycle variations produce more soot
emissions due to the fluctuating combustion phenomena. Some cycles
produce negative piston work and comparable positive work compared
to the finer conventional mode resulting in higher IMEP. The coefficient
of variations (COV) become higher for intermediate EGR rates
(30–45%) due to the transitional combination of residual gas and fresh
charge. The COV is possibly reduced from 23% to 5.8% by using the
fuel injection strategy (split, late and spray profile) to the acceptable
level [215]. The EGR addition reduced the BTE in higher rates for diesel
compared to the biodiesel because the EGR reduced the oxygen avail-
ability, in case of biofuels the BTE reduction is lower due to its own
oxygen. If rising EGR rate, the HC and CO emissions are higher for
biodiesel than the diesel due to the premixed nature. Low temperature
heat release (LTHR) or cool flame reaction has negative temperature
coefficient behaviors. Both LTHR and high temperature heat release
(HTHR) stages, the charge is rapidly exchanged between the zones re-
sulting in more mass in crevice. LTHR reaction usually occurs in LTC at
the region where the bulk gas temperature less than 800 K (probably 10
CAD aTDC). For higher CN fuels like biodiesel, the appearance of LTHR
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
is reduced due to the improved transition between the first and second
stage combustions. LTHR plays a small role in the timings of HTHR,
which affects the engine efficiency. Both the increase in FIP and EGR
increased the LTHR trend, and the location of maximum HRR is re-
tarded with EGR intensification [290].
Zheng et al. reported (RCCI) that the addition of EGR reduces
oxygen fraction which is the primary reason for lower NOx emissions
(Fig. 4). Minor CO emission has been observed with 70% premixed fuel
(70% gasoline/30% diesel) condition with EGR rise. Reduction in HC
emission has been found up to 30% EGR addition after that it increased.
Indicated thermal efficiency and combustion efficiency follows an in-
creasing trend up to 45% EGR rate. Intake boost device is used to ensure
the required oxygen in the cylinder with EGR rate. The part of HC and
CO recirculated into the cylinder by EGR is oxidized in the upcoming
cycle. Longer ignition delay resulting from EGR which improves the
fuel-air stratifications. Combined effects of the above factors may po-
sitively affect the CO and HC oxidations for specific EGR rates [139].
Lei et al. analyzed the 80–100% main injection and 20-0% trigger in-
jection (20° bTDC) of diesel fuel with high (45%) EGR rate in LTC mode
engine (50% load). NOx emission was not more than 20 ppm in the two-
stage injection strategy (optimum: 85%:15%) with EGR. If advancing
the SoMI from 40° bTDC to 60° bTDC, NOx emission was decreased by
6 ppm. NOx formation slightly reduced, and CO emission increased
while advancing the SoMI from 60° bTDC to 95° bTDC due to the re-
duced combustion gas temperature. Due to wall attachment of fuel and
lower cylinder temperature make challenges to form the uniform air-
fuel mixture [266]. NOx and PM emissions for natural gas (NG)-diesel
dual fuel PCCI combustion has below EURO VI emission regulations
(0.4 g/kWh and 0.01 g/kWh respectively). Increase EGR rate retarded
both the LTHR and HTHR and increased its peak values. Rising EGR
rate (0–50%) reduces both the CA10-CA50 and CA50-CA90, and the
reduction rate is higher for CA50-CA90 duration. Location of CA50
Fig. 5. Effects of EGR on noise and PM emission.
29
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
becomes more important, if it occurs nearer the TDC. CO emission
becomes lower (15 g/kWh) if CA50 happens 6–8° bTDC, but it increased
NOx formations. Fig. 4 shows that minor CO2 is observed at 20% EGR
rate after that it increased due to the recirculated gases and non-dis-
sociated combustion products [290].
Huang et al. reported on low to medium EGR rates, the presence of
small-sized particulate matter (PM) particles in combustion products
are dominant and the ratio of the small-size PM concentration to the
total number of PM concentration is huge. This ratio significantly re-
duced by 30%–40% EGR substitution at medium engine load. Medium
engine load with EGR, oxygen partially oxidized with fuel molecules
resulting in large size PM particles appeared with the smoke emission.
Total particle number concentration (TPNC) was lower (~2×E9 N/cc)
at 25% EGR and total particle mass concentration (TPMC) was minor
(~0 μg/cc) up to 30% EGR rates irrespective of the fuel type (Fig. 5).
From the analysis, 25–30% of EGR is better for LTC modes. PM particle
size distributions are affected while using more than 30% EGR rates due
to the lower cylinder gas temperature and oxygen which unable to
oxidizes the larger soot particles into small soot particles [301]. Ciatti
et al. reported on gasoline direct injection mode, the peak NOx emission
was found in 30% ethanol (E30) due to more in-cylinder gas tem-
perature and premixed HRR. Split injection model (50/50% vol.) gen-
erates double peak pressure and HRR traces for aromatic and alkylate
when SOI2 occur at 5° aTDC. The addition of EGR from 0% to 25%,
NOx emissions was reduced almost half of its original value. PM de-
scribed by filter smoke number (FSN), is higher for aromatic fuel and
lower for alkylate and E30 fuels, and augmentation EGR reduced the
FSN value for all above fuels (λ:1.8). Fuel consumption is reduced with
EGR augmentation while maintaining the same AFR. Relatively more
oxygen and longer mixing time reduced FSN. The alkylate and E30 have
lower FSN than the aromatic due to the lower SAFR. Combustion noise
is decreased with EGR increase for aromatic (Fig. 5) and alkylate but it
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
is increased for E30. Combustion noise was more than 90 dB for 30%
ethanol above 20% EGR rate due to the very rapid pressure rise re-
sulting from long ID period. First HRR for aromatic and alkylate was
higher than the second HRR up to 15% EGR but in case of E30 it was
changed. Single HRR observed for higher EGR and double HRR is found
in high EGR with high intake charge pressure due to the higher latent
heat and oxygen along with lower boiling point and SAFR of the E30
(Table 2) [328].
4. Effects of compression ratio (CR), load and speed
Higher compression ratio enhances the rate of HRR in typical op-
erating conditions. Faster chemical kinetics from the high-temperature
environment implies that a lesser combustion duration. Increase in
premixed ratio reduces the global fuel reactivity thereby decreased the
maximum cylinder gas temperature at typical CR. Minor CR with higher
premixed fuel remarkably reduced the cylinder gas temperature re-
sulting in nearly zero NOx emissions. In high CR, both HC and NOx
emissions are increased due to the unburned premixed charge of LRF
and higher burning temperature of HRF. Lower CR implies slightly
lower combustion efficiency and it is favorable for CA50 combustion
phasing from the fuel-to-work conversion process and promotes IMEP
(70% Pr, RCCI) (Fig. 6) [140]. Similar work was conducted by Han
et al. and reported that the maximum BTE of 34.5% was observed for
45% premixed fuel at full engine load which is 33% for CCM (18.5 CR,
18° bTDC SoMI). This is possible in LTC mode due to reduced heat loss.
HC and CO emissions are reduced and NOx emission increased with the
augmentation of compression ratio similar to the CCM but the level of
HC and CO are higher. Particle mass was reduced about ~72% in RCCI
mode than the CCM at full engine load (0.225 mg/l), and COV of IMEP
reduced (42.1%) with rising of load (25–100%) because of the HRF rise.
Fig. 6. Effects of CR, load and speed on emissions behaviors.
30
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
The coefficient of variation (COV) measures the relative variability.
Combustion duration (CA10-CA90) is increased with increasing of en-
gine loads due to the more amount of fuel burnings. RCCI combustion
has a shorter combustion duration compared to that of CCM for all
loads due to the better air-fuel formation and higher octane number fuel
improves the flame velocity (Fig. 7) [145]. Most researchers suggested
that to operate the RCCI mode engine up to 60% loads (with 80% Pr). If
operated in higher loads, the engine becomes more unstable and cycle-
by-cycle variations, higher ringing intensity and incomplete combus-
tion are remarked [146,150]. Analysis of the ringing intensity (RI)
provides a measure of the combustion noise level. The RI generally
estimated by using Eq. (1) [153],
2
1
RI = ⎜⎛ ⎟⎞ ∗ ⎜
(
⎛ 0.05 ∗ dp
( )
dt max ) ⎞⎟ ∗ γRTmax
⎝ 2γ ⎠ ⎜⎜ pmax ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠ (1)
where, ( )
dp
dt max
is the maximum pressure rise rate, pmax is the peak cy-
linder gas pressure, Tmax is the peak of mass averaged in-cylinder gas
temperature, γ is the ratio of specific heats and R is the gas constant.
Paykani et al. investigated the effects of diesel fuel combustion on RCCI
engine. At 800 rpm, more time is available for the initiation of com-
bustion process resulting in more RI. Maximum RI of 2.5 MW/m2 has
been observed at 800 rpm which is 0.5 MW/m2 and 0.9 MW/m2 for
1300 rpm and 1800 rpm respectively (Fig. 7). At higher engine speed,
chemical reactions are completed in lesser time with minor heat loss.
Engine combustion temperature is enhanced at higher engine speed
which improves the fuel oxidations. If intake charge temperature kept
at 60 °C, the RI was ~1 MW/m2 and it becomes more than 35 MW/m2 at
100 °C for 1300 rpm. EGR, late SoMI timing and lower CR are possibly
used to reduce the RI to the required level (5 MW/m2) [178]. Apparent
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
Fig. 7. Effects of CR, load and speed on combustion behaviors.
HRR in premixed combustion phase is decreased significantly in minor
engine loads due to the lean air-fuel mixture and vice-versa. Cycle-by-
cycle/cycle-to-cycle variations in the combustion process is one of the
major problems in LTC modes. Mixture composition, in-cylinder charge
motion, cyclic cylinder charging and so on are led to the fluctuation
cycles [64,65,137,205].
Wang et al. found that a reduction in BSFC had been observed while
increasing dimethyl ether (DME) premixed fuel supply for both 40%
and 80% engine loads. Decreasing in BSFC has been observed with
retardation of the start of diesel fuel IT from 11° to 7° bTDC. Minor
BSFC in PCCI mode with DME (PFI) is possible due to the faster com-
bustion of premixed fuel compared to the diffusion counterpart. NOx
emissions was slightly reduced or kept constant while increasing pre-
mixed fuel quantity, and retardation of SoMI timing considerably re-
duced the NOx level. Smoke follows a similar pattern of the NOx and it
attains a minor level in higher premixed ratio (16 mg/cycle) with ad-
vanced SoMI (11° bTDC) due to the better air-fuel mixing resulting from
early fuel injection, and longer combustion duration oxidizes the major
soot particles. Exhaust gas temperature (EGT) increased with retarda-
tion of SoMI and slightly reduced with premixed fuel rise due to late
and progressive burning, but the after-treatment system works well at
this temperature level (340–380 °C) [209]. Smoke formation depends
on incomplete combustion of the air-fuel mixture and PM emission has
few components namely heavy hydrocarbons absorbed or condensed on
soot and sulfates [125,146]. Hosseini et al. reported that in lower en-
gine loads, minimum premixed gasoline produces a controlled com-
bustion phasing resulting from improved charge stratifications. Peak
engine loads, more gasoline is supplied to the engine which enters the
crevice and combustion boundary surfaces, and it exhausted as un-
burned gas emissions. COV of IMEP is ascended and then declined with
the augmentation of gasoline premixed ratio and is optimum at 85% of
Pr. Port injected fuel burnt in the premixed zone at constant volume
31
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
and increased the peak cylinder pressure. If increasing premixed fuel,
the portion of direct injection of HRF will be minimized thereby re-
ducing the in-cylinder global reactivity. Moreover, the LRF introduce
more latent heat in the cylinder which increases the cooling effect. In
high (> 60%) premixed ratio, the combustion phasing is retarded and
increases the pressure rise rate along with COV. Hence, this could be
reduced by using optimum premixed fuel, preheating of charge and
retarded SoMI timing [237]. Ramesh et al. reported that on LTC mode
engine, at 33% load with 4° bTDC fuel IT, HC and CO emissions were
increased by 7.94 and 5.93 times than the CCM. At 80% engine load, no
significant changes were found on HC and CO emissions with retarda-
tion of the fuel IT. Fuel structure, combustion chamber design and
engine operating conditions are the major parameters that influence the
HC formation (0.13 g/kWh in Euro VI norms). At 33% load with 45%
EGR, combustion duration was 22.9 CAD for 6° bTDC and it becomes
24.5 CAD for 0° bTDC injection timing. In the case of 80% load with
41% EGR, combustion duration was 41 CAD for 6° bTDC and 35.8 CAD
for 1° bTDC injection timing. Advancing of injection timing leads to
longer ignition delay period and rapid burning in lower loads with
minor fuel, but higher quantity of fuel is supply at peak loads which
reduced the chamber temperature and followed the progressive burning
pattern (Fig. 7) [265].
5. Influence of charge mixture
5.1. Premixed ratio (Pr or Rp)
It is defined as the ratio of the energy of premixed fuel (ELRF ) to the
total energy supplied (ELRF + HRF ). Gharehghani et al. reported that the
addition of hydrogen as a premixed fuel in RCCI mode. The HRR was
retarded more than the methane/diesel RCCI because of the hydrogen's
octane number and latent heat. Increase in hydrogen concentration
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
additionally retards the start of combustion. The number of hydrogen
radicals increased with rising of hydrogen shares which increases the
combustion quality and oxidation rate. Maximum HC reduction occurs
after the premixed combustion periods (10–15° CA aTDC) or during the
post-combustion. Similarly, in the first stage of combustion, CO is
produced and the onset of the main combustion, the significant amount
of CO is oxidized into carbon dioxide. Increase in hydrogen premixed
fuel from 10% to 20%, the relative reduction in HC emission is more.
About 29.8% and 35.5% of HC and CO emissions have been reduced
while using 30% hydrogen premixed fuel. Due to the increase of hy-
drogen increases HC radicals which enhanced the combustion rate, and
more (> 30%) hydrogen is restricted due to the NOx formations. About
35.5% of CO emission was reduced with the addition of 30% hydrogen
compared to that of the CCM. Increase in 30% hydrogen premixed fuel
increased NOx emissions by 23.1% compared to that of CCM. EGR
possibly lowered the NOx emissions with negligible changes in the
unburned HC emissions [138]. Zheng et al. reported that 100% pre-
mixed ratio (Pr) indicates the characteristics of HCCI and 0% premixed
ratio indicates CCM behavior. From Fig. 8 (in appendix file), 100%
premixed fuel shows the maximum average cylinder gas pressure and
HRR with lower mean gas temperature. Diffusion combustion becomes
submissive while increasing premixed fuel from 0% to 70% because the
longer ignition delay which promotes air-fuel mixing and premixed
combustion phasing. Diffusion combustion phasing could not be easily
observed at higher EGR (45%) rates regardless of premixed ratio. On
reducing Pr or EGR, the fuel contributed in premixed combustion is
decreased and fuel involved in the diffusion combustion gradually in-
creased resulting in dominant diffusion combustion. Reduction in
combustion efficiency has been observed while changing the premixed
fuel from 0% to 50%. Due to the premixed LRF forms very lean φ in
whole combustion chamber and HRF forms rich φ regions. Subse-
quently combustion happens in core regions rather than whole com-
bustion chamber. However, premixed fuel increases from 50% to 100%,
the φ falls in the combustible region and combustion happens both the
core and boundary layer regions. These lead to more cylinder gas
temperature thereby enhanced the fuel burning and combustion effi-
ciency [139].
Similarly, Jia et al. investigated the effect of methanol (M) premixed
fuel with stable diesel injection timing (27° bTDC) in RCCI combustion
(Fig. 9a). If retarded/advanced (7–37° bTDC) IT, the peak HRR become
decreased/increased due to the LRF/HRF concentration variations in-
side the combustion chamber. Longer ignition delay causes more
amount of fuel accumulations inside the cylinder and the combustion
process move towards the expansion stroke. The maximum gas tem-
perature has been found at 60% Pr, and the neat diesel CCM shows a
lower peak temperature trace (Fig. 9b). Fig. 9b depicts the temperature
reduction with LRF substitutions due to the cooling effects before the
onset of combustion process. Increase methanol fraction increased
premixed combustion phase and reduced mixing controlled combustion
phase particularly in the final stage of the combustion process. It could
Fig. 9. Heat release rate vs. crank angle for different premixed ratio [159].
32
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
be beneficial for LTC with optimum cylinder gas pressure and mean
effective pressure. Increase in Pr (0–70%) declined RI (26→15 because
lowering HRR has a dominant role in the final RI value and the ex-
pansion also reduces the maximum pressure levels. Soot emission is
higher at 12° bTDC IT due to the local equivalence ratio remain higher
at the CA10 and it is reduced (0.001 g/kWh) with SoMI advance (22°
bTDC). However, this SoMI produces more ringing intensity and it
possibly reduced by late injection with volatile fuels [159]. Mohebbi
et al. reported that the augmentation of n-heptane proportion affects
the mixture reactivity and reduced ignition delay period. Rising cy-
linder gas pressure has been observed for higher n-heptane fractions
because it enhanced the HRF diffusion combustion phasing. RCCI mode
with advanced HRF injection timing produces nearly homogeneous
mixtures thereby achieved relatively lower combustion temperature
than the CCM. In RCCI, increasing HRF has negligible effects on the
exhaust gas chemical availability except for lower (0–7.5%) direct fuel
injection (DFI; n-heptane) in which more unburned gas species due to
misfire. During the compression stroke, irreversibility increases for
0–7.5% DFI (100–92.5% premixed fuel) because of late SOC and mis-
fire, and is possibly reduced by 7.5%–15% DFI fraction. Further in-
creasing of HRF mass fractions, the irreversibility associated with the
premixed combustion is almost constant [169].
Normally, more than 60% of premixed gasoline supply, the com-
bustion duration (CA10-CA90) is increased and fuel conversion effi-
ciency has been dropped. Due to the long ignition delay, the premixed
HRR is increased which increases the in-cylinder gas pressure.
Simultaneously, unburned emissions are also increased due to the high
local equivalence ratio. Amplification of gasoline premixed ratio re-
duced the peak HRR at 3.2 bar IMEP but is increased at 5.1 bar IMEP.
This may be due to the dissimilarity between the engine operating
conditions or high combustion temperature. At minor loads, a well
premixed burning phase could be accomplished with diesel due to the
lean AFR. However, the mixture might be over lean in global reactivity
if too much LRF combined with HRF. At this point, it is difficult to burn
all LRF molecules because of the wall wetting and lower temperature in
boundary layer regions [203]. Jia et al. reported that the RI increased
with augmentation of engine load due to the higher cylinder gas tem-
perature (RCCI). RI has a trade-off relation with effective indicated
specific fuel consumption (Fig. 10 in appendix file), particularly for
higher premixed ratio. More (100%) premixed fuel creates uniform air-
fuel mixture and prone to HCCI combustion which in turn generates
more HC and CO emissions. Increasing of premixed fuel with intake
temperature leads to intensifying the RI by rapid combustion and cycle-
by-cycle variations due to the passive combustion control. For higher
(above 65%) premixed fuel, NOx emission lies less than the Euro VI
NOx limit (0.4 g/kWh) due to the lean air-fuel mixture. LTHR for 85%
premixed ratio is much weaker than that of 75% premixed ratio due to
the minor HRF fractions and high LRF. Combustion duration for me-
thanol/diesel RCCI is lower than that of gasoline/diesel RCCI due to the
faster burning, higher octane number and volatility of methanol, and is
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
reduced further while rising ICT (319–419 K) [243].
Aydin et al. concluded that lower BSFC was observed in 50%
ethanol (E)/biodiesel (BD) RCCI mode at 75% engine load which is
10.2% and 1.2% lesser than that of 30% ethanol premixed fuel RCCI
and CCM respectively. Due to the faster burning of ethanol and lower
heating value reduce the reservoir energy input to the engine cylinder.
The 30% ethanol Pr RCCI has higher BSFC for all test fuels (Table 5)
compared to CCM and 50% Pr RCCI mode. Moreover, BTE is also higher
for 30% ethanol Pr RCCI except for B10 (10BD90D) and B50 at 50%
load. Usually, this is not possible in IC engines because the BTE and
BSFC having trade-off relations. With faster chemical reactions, heat
transfer from the combustion gas to the combustion wall is reduced and
extended to blowout regions thereby increasing the CO to CO2 oxida-
tions. Otherwise, alcohol/biofuels have higher latent heat of vaporiza-
tion; it causes relatively lower in-cylinder temperature particularly
nearer to the chamber wall and crevice volume resulting in more HC
and CO emissions [146]. Wang et al. researched in RCCI combustion
mode and reported that lesser ISFC was observed for 80% and 84%
premixed fuel in specified diesel injection timings (35–25° bTDC).
When the premixed fuel increased, the phasing of CA50 (50% heat
release) tends to move backward, gradually approaches 0 CAD position,
is favor for complete combustion. If increase premixed ratio beyond
88%, unless the diesel injection timing is retarded, the combustion
becomes unstable and misfire occurred. In 900 rpm and 83% premixed
ratio, the start of injection is 38° bTDC for 40% EGR and it becomes 44°
bTDC for no EGR rate. Similarly, 2500 rpm and 90% premixed ratio,
start of injection is 59° bTDC in 54% EGR and turn to 70° bTDC for no
EGR rate. These results are prepared based on the location of CA50;
CA50 lies within 6.5–8.5 CAD aTDC for with EGR mode and 4.5–6.5
CAD aTDC for without EGR mode to obtain higher combustion effi-
ciency. High EGR rate, gasoline proportion (lean AFR) and moderate
advanced SoMI timing significantly increased the ignition delay period.
For same premixed fuel, EGR substitution additionally increased the
Fig. 11. Effects of air-fuel mixture.
33
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
ignition delay period. Hence, the SoMI should be retarded for achieving
desired CA50 location [150]. Similarly, the increase in LPG fraction in
LPG/dimethyl ether (DME) mixture, BTE is reduced slightly due to the
lower quantity of HRF (diesel) oxidized during the combustion (PCCI).
Long ignition delay with retarded combustion phasing is observed for
higher LPG fractions which reduce the BTE due to the lower reactivity.
This issue possibly reduced by advancing of the SoMI timing, higher ICT
and HRF [207]. The thermal efficiency of DME-diesel (DF-PCCI) engine
is more and increases with increasing of DME premixed fuel. Dual-fuel
combustion with lower DME ratio (14%), two peaks in HRR could be
observed caused by DME's LTHR and diesel's diffusion combustion
HTHR pattern. In case of high premixed ratio (30%), three peaks are
observed; DME's HTHR additionally observed in between the above
heat release curves in both the low/mid loads and 0–27% EGR rates.
Above three stages HRR occurred at around 27°, 14° and 2° bTDC crank
angle and the SoMI happen at 7° bTDC crank angle. Such variations did
not remarkably appear in pressure traces (due to curve smoothing/fil-
tering effects), but the in-cylinder gas temperature is slightly increased.
In dual-fuel PCCI, pressure and temperature follow slow progressive
patterns and its peak values are higher than that of the CMM. Hence,
the premixed charge increases the cylinder gas pressure and tempera-
ture meantime decreased the HRF's ignition delay period resulting in
enhanced fuel conversion efficiency [211].
5.2. Air-fuel mixture
Bae et al. analyzed the effects of air-fuel ratio (AFR) in combustion
efficiency. Combustion efficiency (CE) is reduced with increasing of
AFR. In dual-fuel combustion, 99% combustion efficiency was observed
at 25:1 AFR and it becomes 97% at 50:1 AFR, but the combustion ef-
ficiency is 99.5% in CCM. It was also reported that a drop in combus-
tion efficiency has been found with the addition of EGR. At no EGR rate,
the combustion efficiency was 96.8% and it becomes 95.8% for 40%
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
cooled EGR, in case hot EGR it was 96.5%. Cooled EGR reduces the ICT
thereby reducing combustion efficiency and increased HC and CO
emissions. NOx emissions are higher for lower AFR (26:1 - rich zone) in
dual-fuel PCCI mode and it became lower for high AFR (54:1 - lean
zone). CCM produces 20 times more NOx than the Euro VI regulation
while it operated at 60:1 AFR due to the heterogeneous combustion
nature. However, dual-fuel PCCIs NOx is still higher than the Euro VI
limit value and is reduced with EGR. HC and CO emissions are in-
creased while increasing the AFR due to the lean mixture, bulk
quenching phenomena and lower operating temperature (Fig. 11). Dual
fuel PCCI mode produces optimum engine-out emissions, ~98.5%
combustion efficiency and minor COV_IMEP (2%) while operating at
around 35:1 AFR [195]. Effects of the equivalence ratio (φ) on in-cy-
linder gas temperature for ethanol (10E90D) PCCI is shown in Fig. 11.
Increase in ethanol fraction from 0 to 50% while maintaining φ < 0.3,
the cylinder gas pressure was reduced due to the lower reaction activity
of ethanol. More than 0.4 φ, the PCCI combustion property is nearly
similar to the CCM temperature profile [218]. High φ may also be
formed while the EGR is employed due to the lower  oxygen con-
centration. Reduced local φ has been observed for higher injection
pressure (IP) through better fuel atomization thereby reducing the soot.
At 0% EGR with high IP, lower φ leads to extremely lesser CO and soot
emissions for both CCM and dual fuel mode engines. NOx emissions are
higher in 0% EGR rate and it obeys Euro VI norms at 45% EGR rate
irrespective of FIP (200–1000 bar) [246]. When φ increased to 0.99 or
close to stoichiometric conditions, the NOx is slightly decreased (50%
load, HCCI mode). NOx formations increased while increasing the φ
from 0.6 to 0.8 due to better combustion. Minor NOx has been observed
at 0.6 φ and 3000 rpm. Logically, homogeneous lean air-fuel mixture
reduces the combustion period and peak cylinder gas temperature due
to the lower oxygen availability. NOx emissions are reduced while in-
creasing of the engine speed due to the insufficient time for combustion
reactions [256]. Similarly, a reduction in HC emission has been ob-
served for oxygenated fuels while rising φ and reducing premixed fuel.
Relatively, lean air-fuel mixture in LTC with a long combustion
Fig. 12. Effects of fuel variability.
34
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
duration produce more HC emission. Singh et al. investigated the effects
of relative AFR/excess air ratio in biodiesel/diesel dual-fuel PCCI
(Fig. 11). NOx and IMEP are reduced with increasing of relative AFR
due to the lean air-fuel mixture. In lean mixture conditions, combustion
behaviors are weaker and combustion noise is reduced. At minor re-
lative AFR, the CO emission is more due to the deficiency of oxygen and
again CO increased in high relative AFR due to the lean mixture. Excess
air ratio of 3 is optimum while considering the IMEP, CO and NOx
[292].
5.3. Fuel variability (fuel type)
Octane number, cetane number, fuel properties and chemical
structure affects the combustion behavior. Hosseini et al. studied the
effects of cetane number (CN) on RCCI combustion. More rapid pre-
mixed combustion has been observed for oxygenated biodiesels due to
the higher CN. Maximum cylinder gas pressure and HRR are observed
in CNG/biodiesel RCCI mode at 50% engine load (due to extended ID).
However, neat biodiesel used as a fuel in CCM exhibits a shorter igni-
tion delay (ID) period. Comparing CNG/biodiesel and CNG/diesel RCCI
modes, biodiesel pilot fuel reduces the HC emission by ~32.5% for all
loads because of its better ignitability (Fig. 12). Peak thermal efficiency
was observed for CNG/biodiesel mode (45.25%) which is 40.68% for
CCM [156]. Thirumalini et al. reported that the higher peak pressure
was observed (58 bar) for B10 (90%D) biodiesel/diesel blend and it was
8% higher compared to that of CCM. Biodiesel/diesel RCCI combustion
exhibited lower cylinder gas temperature and increased BTE (31%) due
to the better-premixed combustion (BTE is 23% for CCM). Comparing
with CCM, NOx emissions was reduced by 24% at full engine load in
30% biodiesel/diesel RCCI combustion. Due to the lower equivalence
ratio and higher latent heat of biodiesel/diesel blends lead to reduce the
in-cylinder gas temperature. Lower smoke concentration has been ob-
served for all engine loads with increasing of biodiesel fraction in
biodiesel/diesel blend. The availability of fuel bound oxygen reduces
carbon concentrations and extended the burning rate. Biodiesel
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
contains nitrogen in their molecular structure, and during the com-
bustion process it converted to hydro cyanide (HCN) or ammonia (NH3)
compounds which are lead to NOx emissions [179]. Low boiling point
and high octane number contribute to increasing the premixed com-
bustion period due to the longer ignition delay. Advance SoMI timing
increased physical ID period in line with premixed ratio. At 50% pre-
mixed ratio, ignition delay has been found as 28° in 38° bTDC SoMI and
14° for 18° bTDC SoMI timing. Due to the augmentation of the in-cy-
linder gas temperature during the compression stroke reduces the
physical ID period. At 50% premixed ratio and 30° bTDC SoMI timing,
the ignition delay for 10% oxygen fraction is 26° and turn to 22° for
14.5% oxygen fraction. This is because of the increased oxygen fraction
enhances reactivity rate and expedite the fuel oxidations. Enhancement
in intake oxygen concentration possibly reduced chemical ID period
[208]. Srihari et al. stated that lower carbon dioxide had been observed
in dual-fuel PCCI mode at lower engine loads due to minor in-cylinder
gas temperature and it reduced further for both diesel/15ethanol
(E15D85) and E15D/E15D modes because of the cooling effect. About
31% and 30% lower carbon dioxide was observed for diesel/E15D
mode compared to diesel/diesel dual-fuel and CCM at medium engine
load. NOx formation is reduced by 28% in diesel/diesel dual-fuel mode
as compared to the CCM. Zeldovich (Thermal) mechanism is coupled to
fuel combustion chemistry through radicals like OH, O and O2 at higher
temperatures and wide range of equivalence ratio. NO is formed rather
slowly by the Zeldovich mechanism compared with the timescales of
fuel oxidation processes; it is more significantly formed in post-flame
oxidations. Dual-fuel PCCI mode relatively produces a lower in-cylinder
gas temperature which reduces NOx emissions (Fig. 12). In lower loads,
about 85% and 81% lower NOx emissions are observed for 15%ethanol
+85%diesel (E15D85)/E15D85 and diesel/E15D85 (DI PCCI mode)
respectively. Authors did not discuss the effects of intake charge con-
dition; it was mentioned as 190 °C. However, it was very high and
Fig. 14. Effects of the intake charge condition.
35
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
causes more COV_IMEP and NOx (discussed in section 5.4) [217]. The
n-butanol (B) PFI and cottonseed (CS) BD/butanol mixture direct in-
jection, NOx emissions decreased by ~15% compared to that of CCM.
Using of oxygenated fuel (alcohols) attributed to a lower carbon to
oxygen ratio and lean mixture resulting in minor NOx emissions.
Ringing intensity for cottonseed BD blend operations are lower than the
CCM (Fig. 12). Binary mixture (B50D50) has high RI due to the pro-
longed ignition delay with rapid HRR. Effective SFC is higher for
ethanol/diesel combustion due to lower CV, and the alcohol burns the
lubrication film thereby raised friction losses. Diesel/ethanol blend has
higher BSFC compared to that of diesel fuel because of the lower ca-
lorific value (CV) of the ethanol. Ethanol has 2/3 of diesel CV and the
ignition delay for ethanol-diesel blends are more that leads to in-
complete combustion if the ethanol fraction is higher (> 50%) in
ethanol-diesel mixture [230]. Soloiu et al. reported that soot emission
was reduced by 65% and 90% for butanol (B) 80% + GTL 20% (GTL,
Gas to liquid - kerosene) and butanol-diesel (B80D20) RCCI mode re-
spectively compared to that of CCM. Early PFI (butanol) and split direct
injection allowed in-cylinder charge mixing which reduced rich fuel
zones. Ringing intensity increased by 85% and 80% for B80 + GTL20
and B80 + D20 RCCI compared to CCM due to the higher reactivity
gradients (Fig. 12). The n-butanol provides oxygen molecules during
the fuel oxidation which improved the combustion efficiency and soot
oxidation [316]. In summary, biofuels can be effectively used in RCCI
combustion with better combustion phasing control.
5.4. Intake charge temperature (ICT) and pressure
Zheng et al. reported the influence of intake charge temperature
(ICT) on the HRR (Fig. 13 in appendix). The peak of the first stage HRR
considerably reduced and second stage HRR was increased with ICT
rise. Augmentation of ICT increased the fuel vaporization rate and
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
reduced the ignition delay period. Therefore, the diesel fuel injection
timing must be retarded to ensure the effective combustion process i.e.
CA50 occurs at around 4–8° CA aTDC. LTHR has less sensitivity and
HTHR has more sensitivity to the ICT variations. Higher ICT improved
the fuel-air homogeneity resulting in higher premixed HRR and reduced
the LTHR pattern. ICT positively affects the combustion efficiency and
the difference is higher for lower premixed ratio condition. Charge
cooling becomes higher for higher premixed ratio and all fuel particles
did not attain auto-ignition temperature resulting in lower thermal ef-
ficiency and combustion efficiency. In 80% ethanol premixed fuel, a
small negative change in thermal efficiency has been observed while
changing ethanol purity from 80% to 100%. In 60% Pr, thermal effi-
ciency is positively changed for the same ethanol purity change. Due to
the higher Pr with pure ethanol produces rapid oxidation and shorter
combustion phasing thereby reduced the IMEP. In the case of less
ethanol purity, water molecules absorb the thermal energy resulting in
progressive burning. Higher thermal efficiency could be observed in
lower premixed fuel and is affected by the water concentration. Slight
upward trends have been observed for both LTHR and HTHR with high
fuel injection pressure. Changes in cylinder gas pressure are almost
constant because the total fuel energy to the system is constant irre-
spective of fuel injection pressure [160]. Similarly, Gross et al. reported
that 32.65% of BTE was observed at 51% Pr with 323 K intake charge
temperature. If intake temperature increases beyond the limited level
(60 °C), thermal efficiency is reduced due to the lower volumetric ef-
ficiency and inferior oxygen fraction [167]. Ringing intensity is
strongly associated with the excessive fraction of the pressure rise rate.
Increase in RI has been observed with advancing in diesel fuel injection
timing together with augmentation of ICT over 390 K. On the other
hand, the occurrence of RI is possibly reduced by late fuel injection
timing, and the excessive RI chances could be reduced by keeping the
ICT below 410 K [185]. Effect of intake charge pressure (ICP) on ga-
soline/diesel RCCI combustion is shown in Fig. 14. Maximum cylinder
Fig. 15. Effects of injection timing on combustion and emission analyses.
36
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
gas pressure is increased with rising of ICP due to the higher charge
density. Ignition delay is reduced for higher ICP which leads to pro-
gressive fuel burning. Around 60 J/CAD HRR was observed for 1.3 bar
ICP and it becomes 30 J/CAD for 1.8 bar ICP due to the long/short ig-
nition delay periods. In the case of methanol/diesel RCCI, the com-
bustion behavior follows the opposite trend i.e. the combustion rate
increased due to its higher latent heat of vaporization. Within the ICP
(1.3–1.8 bar) range, the methanol/diesel RCCI is operated without any
HRR deteriorations; it might be affected above 1.8 bar ICP [245].
Increase in ICT increases the thermal efficiency and reduced com-
bustion duration by improved fuel evaporation and in-cylinder charge
temperature. Effects of ICT on ringing intensity is shown in Fig. 14 at
typical operating conditions (HCCI). The advanced SOC causes higher
HRR followed by a rapid pressure rise rate which increased the com-
bustion noise. HCCI combustion can be operated up to 170 °C ICT
without violating the RI limit [259]. Kook et al. reported that the
combustion efficiency was 95% at 70 °C and it became 98% for 100 °C
ICT due to the augmentation of the cylinder gas temperature. Influence
of ICT on engine emissions and fuel conversion efficiency (FCE) is
shown in Fig. 14. Usually, rising ICT reduces the CO, HC and smoke
emissions and increased NOx due to the in-cylinder temperature aug-
mentation. Authors stated that the radiation heat transfer occurs be-
tween the soot particle and combustion reactions. However, smoke
emission was increased with ICT augmentation, and apparent HRR also
increased and advanced. It was also stated that about 90% of com-
bustion efficiency had been observed at 1000 bar FIP and it was 96% for
500 bar FIP (neat diesel) due to the significance of wall wetting. NOx
and smoke emissions are lower for high FIP LTC compared to CCM.
However, they mentioned increasing trends of NOx emissions with the
intensification of FIP [278].
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
6. Influence of operating mode
6.1. Injection timing (IT)
It is defined as the position at which fuel is supplied into the engine
and is usually denoted with respect to TDC. Park et al. reported that at
5° bTDC IT, the in-cylinder pressure had been reduced while increasing
ethanol premixed ratio. The amount of heat absorption is increased
with increasing ethanol concentration. Longer ID period has been ob-
served with augmentation of ethanol fractions which lead to higher in-
cylinder gas pressure. Same SoMI, increase in ethanol premixed fuel on
RCCI combustion decreases premixed combustion duration and raised
diffusion combustion and combustion efficiency. If retarded the SoMI,
the fraction of premixed charge becomes higher at SOC which reduced
the global reactivity inside the cylinder (before SOC) thereby preserved
the location of CA50 constantly (Fig. 15) [142]. Local rich regions are
formed by the main fuel injection when the premixed ratio is lower than
0.6 resulting in higher NOx and RI. When the premixed ratio is more
than 0.6, the main injection fuel will form a rich fuel concentration
which advanced the SOC timing, and longer combustion duration leads
to diminished the peak HRR and RI. SoPI around 65° bTDC and retarded
SoMI around 10° or 5° bTDC produce lower ringing intensity. Retarded
SoMI with higher premixed ratio concurrently reduced the RI in higher
engine loads compared to low and medium loads. SoMI is retarded in
higher loads for receiving the desired CA50, but in minor loads, the
CA50 become postponed which reduced engine power output [164].
The CA10 and CA50 are directly affected by the modification of SoMI
timing. Variations in direct fuel IT affects fuel reaction rate and make
changes on the combustion velocity accordingly. Direct injection (DI)
timing changed from 60° to 40° bTDC, the moment of CA50 occurs too
early and increased compression work. If DI timing kept 0° bTDC,
combustion started too late which may reduce the positive power. Early
60° bTDC DI timing, engine efficiency could not be improved because of
the too advanced combustion phasing and peak HRR occurs around
TDC. When the direct injection timing is 20° bTDC CA, peak HRR occurs
in the desirable region thereby improved engine power output [165].
Ebrahimi et al. reported that the effects of split injection if using more
than 50/50 ratio of SOI1/SOI2 leads to produce more than 5 MW/m2 RI
value. Due to the long ignition delay period, premixed fuel mixed with a
higher quantity of HRF before the SOC and it becomes higher for peak
loads than the low loads. Hence, RI gets closer or exceeds the limit
value and produce more combustion noise. Higher thermal efficiency
was observed (52.12%) at 11.5 IMEP and 48° CA SoMI. Contradictorily,
advance or retardation of SoMI timing reduces the thermal efficiency
due to the pressure rise/combustion phasing shifted towards the ex-
pansion stroke [166]. Chuahy et al. investigated the effects of fuel
property on dual-fuel RCCI combustion at different injection timing.
Authors reported that 16 g/kWh of CO emission was observed for 60%
premixed gasoline at 30° bTDC SoMI timing which is 18% higher than
Fig. 16. Cylinder pressure vs. crank angle for different SoMI timings [202].
37
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
that of CCM (1.5 g/kWh in Euro VI regulation). Addition of gasoline
reduces maximum cylinder gas temperature due to its higher latent heat
and lower chemical availability. Combustion duration (CA50) for diesel
and primary reference fuel (PRF21) (21% gasoline + 89% diesel) at
0.25 φ and 80% premixed fuel was also reported. PRF21 has higher
combustion duration (CA50) compared to fossil diesel if the SoMI lies
between 140° and 50° bTDC. If SoMI was 40° bTDC, the CA50 for fossil
diesel became higher than the PRF21 and it becomes same at 20° bTDC
SoMI timing due to the physico-chemical fuel properties. From the re-
sults, the better SoMI for RCCI mode is 30–15° bTDC based on the lo-
cation of the CA50 [168]. The effect of engine load and SoMI timing on
LTC diesel engine is shown in Figs. 15 and 16. At peak engine loads,
two-stage apparent HRR could be observed with the effect of SoMI
timing. In-cylinder gas pressure was increased rapidly along with the
first HRR. The heat released in the first spontaneous combustion helps
to burn remaining injected fuels resulting in more pre-mixture com-
bustion. The CA10, CA50 and CA90 are increased reference to CAD
with the augmentation of engine load and approached in advance due
to more high reactivity fuel and working temperature [202].
Early SOC was observed while advancing the SoMI timing from 12°
to 24° bTDC (Fig. 17 in appendix file). Slight advance in SOC has been
found with advancing the SoPI timings due to better air-fuel mixing.
Advancing of SoPI timings is proved to be more effective with advance
SoMI timings (20–24° bTDC) compared to that of late SoMI timings
(12–16° bTDC). At 40° bTDC SoPI produces slight advance in SOC, but
30–35° bTDC SoPI timings produce almost similar SOC. Reduced fuel
consumption has been observed in intermediate SoPI (35° bTDC) and
retarded SoMI (12° bTDC) timings due to the better combustion. Ad-
vance in SoPI timing from 30° to 35° bTDC resulting in minor im-
provements in the thermal efficiency. However, further advancing of
SoPI timing decreased the BTE drastically due to the lesser peak in-
cylinder pressure. If retards the SoPI timing below 30° bTDC, the
available time for air-fuel mixing is reduced which leads to inferior
combustion. Early premixed combustion leads to relatively higher
compression work resulting in a minor drop in thermal efficiency [213].
Korkmaz et al. investigated the triple injection timings (2 pilot injection
and one main injection) in PCCI engine and reported that higher MEP
was observed with triple injection strategy compared to double or
single injection model. Better combustion control has been achieved by
the split injection model. The rate of fuel supply is reduced which leads
to progressive pressure rise with longer combustion duration [222].
Fig. 18 (in appendix file) shows the HRR for diesel split injections. The
left exothermic peak has been reduced by enhancing the second pulse
injection quantity (0.5–7 mg/cycle) at 2200 rpm engine speed with the
SoMI1 at 40° bTDC and SoMI2 at 15° bTDC timings. Post injection is
beneficial for controlling the PM emission and alter the global
equivalence ratio. Increase post-injection fuel quantity increased the
exhaust gas temperature which oxidized the soot particles and also
improved the turbocharger power. The threshold value of post-injection
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
fuel mass in dual-fuel mode is lower than that of CCM. However, ex-
cessive late post-injection fuel (20 °aTDC) leads to decreased thermal
efficiency and increased unburned fuel emissions [240].
Li et al. concluded that for short dwell angles, ignition delay in-
creased with increasing the fraction of the first injection. In the case of
long dwell angles (25–35 °CA), ID period is reduced with an increase of
the first injection fuel fraction. This implies that interactions exist be-
tween split fuel fractions and dwell angles which affect the ID period.
For short dwell angles, first and second pulse injection fuels involved in
the combustion process. In case of long dwell angles with more fraction
of first injection has enough fuel to form the combustible mixture
thereby reduced the ID period. If the fraction of first fuel injection is
smaller and using longer dwell angles, the chemical ID become longer
due to the inefficient combustible mixture formations [244]. Broatch
et al. concluded that when pilot IT brings closer to the TDC, the soot
emission increased. Due to the increase in diffusion combustion re-
sulting from the inefficient mixing of air and fuel. Dual-fuel PCCI pro-
duces NOx emissions below the threshold value of 80 ppm for CI en-
gine. Higher EGR rate has been employed to reduce oxygen
concentration subsequently reduced the maximum in-cylinder gas
temperature [199]. Sogbesan et al. analyzed the retardation of SoMI
from 18° bTDC to 12° bTDC at 24° bTDC constant SoPI timing. Due to
better spatial distributions between the pilot fuel injection and main
fuel injection favor to increase CO emission due to quenching of the
combustion process [293]. Indicated SFC increased while the SoMI
timing is advanced from 20° bTDC. Over advancement of SOI timing
causes a severe spray wall impingement, more incomplete combustion
and inferior thermal efficiency. Minor indicated SFC has been ac-
knowledged by employing the SOI timing around 15–20° bTDC for low
load and 20-10° bTDC for high load [299]. Hosseini et al. concluded
that CO and soot emissions follow the same trends at typical equiva-
lence ratio. In late injection mode, declined CO oxidation is attributed
by the retarded combustion phasing and lower diffusion HRR pattern
Fig. 19. Effect of IT on emissions.
38
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
[312]. Similar research works have been observed in Refs.
[205,250,333,334], and Fig. 19 shows the injection timing effects on
engine analysis. From the observation, maximum NOx emissions has
been observed in/around 24° bTDC main IT, and retarded SoMI reduces
ID period which slightly increased the CO and smoke emissions due to
more diffusion combustion phase. (Note: in Figs. 19–26; E denotes 10
bases, Ex. IMEP (bar)*E3 represents IMEP's value × 1000 , CO (%)*E−1
represents CO value /10 ).
6.2. Spray geometry and injection pressure
Spray geometry such as spray tip penetration, spray angle, spray
cone angle, etc. are affects the combustion process. Nazemi et al. stated
that an increase in cylinder gas pressure had been observed while re-
ducing the fuel spray angle. Lower spray angle targets more fuel to-
wards the high-temperature piston bowl region than the squish region
resulting in higher cylinder gas pressure. About 20 bar higher gas
pressure has been observed while decreasing the spray angle from 74°
to 50°. Impingement of fuel spray particles on piston bowl is more
desirable than the liner surface and squish region. Some droplets are
attached in piston bowl surface due to the impingement especially for
narrow spray angles (25° and 35°). This is more possible to occur when
the spray angle is perpendicular to the piston bowl surface. At this
condition, fuel particles cannot be properly mixed with air resulting in
lower peak HRR. Maximum cylinder gas temperature has been observed
with 35° spray angle, and 74° spray angle produces the lowest peak in-
cylinder temperature (Fig. 20 in appendix file). In 55° spray angle, some
fuel pockets burned in early expansion stroke causes a rapid rise in
cylinder gas temperature. RI is significantly well below the acceptable
level in wider spray angle RCCI mode and RI decreased with increasing
of the spray angle. RI was lesser than the critical value (5 MW/m2)
except 25° spray angle from the range of 25°–74°. Highest (~43%) and
lowest (~38%) thermal efficiency was observed for 55° and 35° spray
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404

Fig. 21. Effects of IP on emission analysis.

Fig. 23. Effect of LTC operating modes.

39
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
Fig. 24. Influence of VVT strategies.
Fig. 25. Types of piston bowl geometry (source [157,350]).
angle respectively due to better and poor fuel atomization and oxida-
tion. Narrow spray angles with partial substitution of premixed fuel
have more HC and CO emissions due to the incomplete oxidation and
the effects of fuel injection pressure on combustion parameters as
shown in Fig. 21 [141].
Effect of FIP on the ignition delay period is shown in Fig. 22a. In
high FIP, fuel particles Sauter mean diameter (SMD) is reduced and
they are evaporated in lesser duration to form the combustible mixture
thereby reduced physical ID (PID). Combustion efficiency is lowered
with the augmentation of FIP due to the spray wall impingement
(Fig. 22b). Increase in engine speed increases IMEP in higher rate with
EGR mode compared to that of without EGR mode. This is because of
the usage of EGR could be helpful for the progressive burning with
lower SFC [150]. The indicated SFC has been reduced with increasing
of FIP at low engine loads and it has no effects in medium and peak
engine loads. This is because of the higher premixed charge forms rich
mixture at medium and high engine loads. Hence, the influence of di-
rect FIP on indicated SFC is minimum [164]. Singh et al. found that an
increase in FIP slightly increased the BTE. However, fixed SoMI, higher
FIP (1000 bar) reduces the BTE due to the wall impingement. CO
emission is not affected by SoMI timing in lower FIP (400 bar). The CO
40
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
formation is slightly reduced with advanced SoMI (12–24° bTDC) in
higher FIP. However, more advanced SoMI increase the CO emission
due to the premixed combustion and lower combustion temperature.
Smoke opacity has been reduced with the augmentation of FIP, but
peak FIP (1000 bar) increases the smoke opacity. Authors addressed
that HC and NOx emissions are mostly increased with the advancing of
SoMI timing; meantime, HC increased and NOx reduced with FIP rise
[201]. Similarly, superior combustion has been observed at 400 bar FIP
due to the dominant diffusion combustion phasing resulting from
higher cylinder gas temperature (PCCI). Lower peak cylinder gas tem-
perature is observed in 700 bar FIP due to wall wetting resulting in
lower NOx formations. Changing FIP (from 400 to 1000 bar) improves
the air-fuel mixing thereby reduced the total PM concentrations
(numbers) from ~8 × 108/m3 to ~4 × 108/m3 and advance SoMI reduces
it in line with FIP by better charge mixture (Fig. 21) [221]. Combustion
duration reduced for multiple/split injection models than single injec-
tion and it has been reduced furthermore by the FIP augmentation and
it was described in Ref. [345]. About 10% of fuel was injected in earlier
(54° bTDC) and the remaining fuel supplied at a retarded angle of 10°
bTDC. The pilot fuel will be ignited first and released heat energy which
enhanced main fuel vapourization and oxidations. At low load and low
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
Fig. 26. Influence of CC and piston bowl type on engine analysis.
FIP (200 bar), single injection mode shows higher cylinder gas tem-
perature (1340 K) than split mode (1150 K) but it has opposite trends at
high FIP (1500 K and 1250 K). At minor FIP, single injection spray
plume leads to longer stoichiometric combustion phase and in the case
of split injection mode, lean combustion becomes dominant. At high
FIP, single injection pattern leads to more wall wetting and split mode
probably leads to better fuel distribution and combustion. However, at
peak engine load, the opposite in-cylinder gas temperature behavior is
observed. Generally, more fuel is supplied in higher engine loads which
probably leads to improper fuel spray patterns at low FIP and high FIP
overcomes these issues thereby observed higher cylinder gas tempera-
ture.
6.3. Type of low temperature combustion (LTC) mode
Methanol/diesel RCCI has a shorter combustion phasing compared
to the gasoline/diesel RCCI resulting in higher RI. Combustion rate of
the methanol is faster compared to that of gasoline and the reactivity
stratification of methanol/diesel RCCI is not visible as gasoline/diesel.
The faster burning rate of methanol plays an important role in the
pressure rise rate [151]. The peak in-cylinder gas temperature for the
CCM is nearly 2700 K and RCCI mode has ~1700 K for the rated load.
This high-temperature region leads to more heat loss which reduced the
engine thermal efficiency [158]. Combustion duration for the stratified
mode RCCI is shorter compared to the CCM mode. Higher HRR could be
observed in rich fuel combustion, which creates a faster transfer of
thermal energy to the adjacent fuel boundary region resulting in faster
combustion and higher thermal efficiency [161]. Park et al. reported
that the gasoline/diesel dual-fuel combustion had 13% more ID period
compared to the CCM. However, biogas/diesel dual-fuel combustion
has 35% more ID period than the CCM. Authors concluded that the
ignition characteristics of the dual-fuel combustion depended on
properties of the LRF. Higher biogas supply considerably extends the
41
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
chemical ID (lower CN) and enhanced in-cylinder gas pressure. Gaso-
line/diesel dual-fuel combustion, the augmentation of premixed fuel
(80%) induced retardation in CA10 by ~13% (from 16.2° to 13° bTDC
SoMI) and extended the combustion duration by 1 CAD for CA10-CA90.
Increase in premixed ratio from 20% to 80%, IMEP changed from 2 to
3.6 bar and 3–4.5 bar for gasoline/diesel RCCI and biogas/diesel RCCI
respectively. Due to more diffusivity, latent heat and octane number of
the premixed fuel prolonged the ID period thereby reduced compres-
sion work. SOC retarded by ~25% for the biogas/diesel dual-fuel
combustion compared to the gasoline/diesel RCCI mode. Longer com-
bustion duration has been observed for 80% biogas premixed supply
due to slow combustion behavior of the biogas. ICT rise and retarded
SoMI timing are possibly improving the combustion phasing [162].
Same BSFC sensitivity has been observed for HCCI and PCCI modes
while varying the ICP. An advanced combustion phasing has been ob-
served in HCCI mode while increasing the ICP and no sensitivity has
been observed in RCCI mode. In HCCI mode, with the effect of ICP,
charge temperature slightly increased and enhanced the pre-mixture
homogeneity [191]. RCCI engine fuelled with n-butanol as PFI and
initiated the combustion by either diesel (named as reactivity stratifi-
cation combustion (RSC)) or n-butanol (concentration stratification
combustion (CSC)) models. Lower ISFC has been observed in RSC be-
cause of the enhanced combustion resulting from LRF/HRF combina-
tion and higher in-cylinder gas temperature. Minor premixed ratio,
lower EGR, high ICT and advanced SoMI timings could be used in the
CSC model for better combustion phasing. This CSC situation led to
reduced NOx formation but increased ringing intensity [153]. RCCI
mode produces 0.3 g/kg-fuel of NOx emissions in 0.93 φ which is
0.02 g/kg-fuel for GCI mode at 55% EGR rate. GCI has lesser cylinder
gas pressure compared to RCCI combustion because of the late com-
bustion phasing. However, RCCI combustion has better control over the
combustion phasing than the GCI strategy [173]. Ethanol-diesel PCCI
combustion showed slightly lower BTE compared to the diesel CCM;
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
due to the lower cetane number and moisture content of the diesohol
(Table 2). Lower cetane number fuel relatively has a smaller diffusion
combustion phase, and the presence of moisture content absorbed some
heat energy during the combustion. The combined effect of these fac-
tors reduced the in-cylinder gas temperature and HC oxidations re-
sulting in lower thermal efficiency [193].
In RCCI combustion, CO emission is reduced (~30%) in medium
compression ratio (~15:1), notably in lower loads (20% load)
[143,144]. LTC mode produces 64% more HC emission compared to the
CCM. The lower combustion reactivity, longer combustion duration and
quenching of cylinder charge lead to more HC emission in LTC modes.
Gasoline has higher volatility and self-ignitability compared to diesel
which leads to more CO and HC emissions [317,323]. Gao et al. re-
ported that 1.8 mg/s of NOx emissions was observed in RCCI mode
which is 21% lower than that of CCM at peak loads. At high pressures
(> 10 atm), more than half of NOx is formed through thermal NOx
mechanism than the Fenimore and NNH NOx formations. The main
barrier for achieving more NOx reductions from the RCCI mode is the
present limitation of load and speed ranges. With the adaptation of
transmission controls might make it possible to achieve more effective
use of RCCI thereby it is beneficial for NOx control and fuel economy
[189]. NOx emissions slightly increased when the propane is supplied
under CCM. In dual-fuel PCCI engine, the amount of diesel supply is
changed and injected in earlier which in turn reduces the NOx forma-
tions. Propane-diesel PCCI produces an overall lean premixed condi-
tion, which reduces the local high-temperature region resulting in
minor NOx emissions. Also, a reduction in PM emission is observed
because of the improved homogeneity and reduced direct injected
diesel quantity. Early direct injection PCCI mode lowers PM emission
by means of premixed combustion. Combustion duration for the dual-
fuel PCCI is reduced with early split direct injection strategy compared
to that of early single direct injection. Late SOC improves the HRF
stratification which leads to layered progressive combustion [197].
Wang et al. [337] investigated different LTC mode engines. It is seen
that both the NOx and CO emissions from HCCI were lower than the
RCCI, while the maximum pressure rise rate (MPRR) was comparable to
that of RCCI at low loads. RCCI mode engine's MPRR is well controlled
in peak loads through the fuel concentration stratification and re-
activity, thus stable operating conditions can be achieved in entire load
range but it is more difficult in HCCI mode. Similarly, Zhang et al. [336]
studied the particulate matter size distributions from advanced com-
bustion mode and CCM engines. Different output parameters were de-
picted in Fig. 23. CCM has the highest PM emissions in all operating
conditions for particle sizes more than the 23 nm. RCCI mode has lower
particle numbers than the CCM but higher than HCCI mode. Generally,
particle numbers are augmented due to the direct injection of fuel, non-
uniformity of fuel distribution and lower combustion temperature. For
HCCI combustion, less than 5% of the particles have a mobility dia-
meter of more than 23 nm. In CDC, more than 75% of the particles are
greater than 23 nm. If we consider particles mobility diameter between
10 and 23 nm, HCCI operating mode shows domination than the RCCI.
This is resulting from premixed combustion strategy which leads to
smaller size particulate matter particle dominations. Diesel HCCI, n-
butanol HCCI and n-butanol PCCI modes have the maximum pressure
rise rate at the border limit of 20 bar/CAD. But in practice, 10 bar/CAD
is prepared for combustion noise reduction. Diesel CDC and diesel LTC
modes show less than 5 bar/CAD of MPRR [238]. Wissink et al. [335]
numerically analyzed direct dual fuel stratification (DDFS) on a CI
engine. DDFS allowed the combustion phasing near TDC along with
reduced combustion noise and cyclic combustion instability issues.
Moreover, the DDFS strategy combines the efficiency benefit of RCCI
and the load benefit of PPC while reducing EGR and combustion in-
stability.
42
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
6.4. Valve actuation timings
Jia et al. reported that the approach of high premixed fuel and early
intake valve close (IVC) timing exhibits lower SFC and smoke emission.
The strategy of late IVC timing and lower premixed fuel become su-
perior to lessening the ringing intensity. Combustion duration (CD) for
CA10 to CA50 is higher than the CA50 to CA90 for early IVC and it
follow opposite trends for late IVC at medium engine loads due to the
lower ignition delay period resulting from higher charge temperature.
Prolonged combustion duration has been observed in late IVC at
medium loads which reduced the thermal efficiency and increased ef-
fective ISFC. At low load, both valve closing methods produce almost
similar network outputs and it becomes 8% lower for late IVC at mid
load. Due to the incomplete combustion (8.7%) resulting from rich air-
fuel mixtures. However, earlier IVC produces around 20 MW/m2 RI and
late IVC makes lesser than the critical RI value [148]. Ozsoysai et al.
stated that reduced SFC had been found with early and late IVC timings
(−45°–125° reference to BDC) than the standard timings (25° aBDC).
Less fuel is required to operate the engine at same IMEP in early or late
IVC than the standard timing. Early IVC causes lower pumping losses
and late IVC has reduced pumping losses, collectively termed as
pumping MEP. Gross IMEP follows the opposite trend to the pumping
MEP, and friction MEP has no significant changes. Engine volumetric
efficiency is lesser than 70% in late IVC and even lesser than 65% in
early IVC which is ~90% in normal IVC. Due to the insufficient time
and some charge is pushed back by the piston into the intake port for
early IVC and late IVC respectively. This condition produces higher
exhaust gas temperature (above 250 °C) and it helped for the after-
treatment techniques. In early and late IVC methods, late IVC becomes
more efficient in terms of fuel consumption and engine-out gas tem-
perature [136]. Jia et al. stated that the late IVC and engine speed af-
fects the effective CR. About 27% reduced effective CR has been ob-
served while retarding the IVC from 140° to 80° CA at 800 rpm and it is
21% at 4000 rpm. Backflow of the charge becomes more in lower en-
gine speeds due to the weakened intake flow rate, and charge turbu-
lence nearly irrespective with late IVC timings. Late IVC model has
more potential to control the effective CR and also preserved the fresh
charge inside the cylinder at higher speeds than the lower speeds. So,
the engine is capable to operate in higher engine load with late IVC at
higher speeds than the lower speeds. NOx emissions has been reduced
(↓83%) with the late IVC and the reduction rate is higher for higher
engine speeds due to the lower oxygen availability and shortened high-
temperature residence time [212]. Park et al. [349] reported that VVT
has more impact on NOx emissions in CDC mode but, in dual-fuel mode,
it affects BSFC additionally. Advance IVC and retard EVC reduces NOx
emissions in low premixed fuel conditions but retard IVC and advance
EVC improves the BSFC while premixed fuel is increased. High-VVT
demonstrates diffusion-like combustion, the unburnt HC and CO can be
oxidized with the evolution of the process due to the local high oxi-
dation temperature. Hence, high-VVT shows a smaller fraction of in-
complete combustion than the high-VCR. Compared with low load,
comparatively retarded injection timing should be used in mid loads to
avoid the extremely high MPRR and RI. At high load, both VVT and
VCR strategies require low effective compression ratio (ECR) to control
the MPRR. In VCR strategy, lower ECR is required for effective con-
trolling of MPRR and NOx emissions. This situation allows earlier SOI
for better homogeneous charge formation and advance combustion
phasing which reduces the fuel consumption and soot emissions. In
contrast, for the VCR strategy, relatively lower ECR can be used at high
load which increases the fresh air induction without any boosting de-
vice. However, the misfire or incomplete combustion regions also in-
creased to some extent in this strategy [344]. Jing et al. [348] reported
the effects of variable IVC timing and stroke length on engine char-
acteristics analysis by changing either stroke length or IVC timings
thereby adjusting the ECRs (Fig. 24). By advancing IVC timings from
120° to 140° bTDC, the peak pressure shows an increasing trend due to
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
the higher ECR. These conditions are probably suitable for high latent
heat of vaporization fuels that requires more thermal energy for va-
porizations or gas phase transformations. The cumulative HRR released
by changing stroke length is slightly (lower) different from the cases
with changing IVC timings. As for changing stroke length, the AFR and
premixed fuel mass would not change but it slightly changes with IVC
mode.
6.5. Combustion chamber geometry
Combustion chamber geometry significantly influences the charge
swirl and turbulence, heat transfer, fuel economy and combustion
process. Salahi et al. concluded that conventional geometry and higher
ICT produces a short combustion duration, rapid HRR and pressure rise.
In pre-combustion chamber model, fuel oxidation occurs at the end of
compression stroke due to its higher temperature. The fuel evaporation
rate is higher in pre-combustion chamber than the CCM and ad-
ditionally, it improved by preheated intake charge resulting in lower
ignition delay period. These factors led to progressive combustion and
reduced the peak in-cylinder gas pressure [108]. Liu et al. analyzed the
influences of combustion chamber (CC) type (Re-entrant, straight and
open CC) on engine characteristics. NOx emissions are increased with
advancing of the SOI timing, and HC emission follows the opposite
trend to NOx for all combustion chamber models. Re-entrant CC pro-
duces lesser NOx emissions and it becomes more in open CC geometry.
Lower ISFC has been found in straight CC geometry with SOI of 16.45°
bTDC and it is increased for both advance and late SOI timings. In RCCI
mode, equivalence ratio of the premixed charge is much lesser than the
unity which produces a lower mean gas temperature and this tem-
perature also based on the HRF injection strategy. Re-entrant CC has
lower throat radius than the bottom bowl radius. Open and straight CC
geometries have a larger throat radius which promotes the squish
Fig. 27. Effects of CC type on engine analysis.
43
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
airflow into the combustion chamber and combustion gas passes out of
the combustion chamber. Hence, low-temperature charge in the squish
region blends with high-temperature charge in the bowl region ade-
quately and finally higher NOx emissions are observed. NO formed in
the flame zone and converted to NO2 when the flame is quenched by
mixing with cooler charge (NO + HO2 → NO2 + OH). The NO2 con-
version back to NO when it quenches by cooler charge once again
(O+ NO2 → O2 + NO) [177]. Fig. 25 shows the rough images of piston
bowl geometry. Haiqin et al. [350] investigated the separated swirl
combustion system (SSCS) and double swirl combustion system (DSCS)
chamber geometries on combustion analysis. Lower BSFC and higher
indicated thermal efficiency and NOx were observed in SSCS than in the
DSCS. Prabhakara et al. [354] conducted a converge CFD simulation
study. It shows that the Toroidal CC (TCC) piston bowl geometry has
high peak pressure than that of the hemispherical CC (HCC) and
shallow depth CC (SCC). Because TCC shows better combustion by the
virtue of better air-fuel formation through improved swirl motion. TCC
is a better option in terms of fuel consumption and soot reduction. It
was also stated that the increase in depth of bowl from TCC baseline
(21.56 mm) to 23.46 mm which increases the swirl ratio thereby
achieving better charge homogeneity. But, further increase in bowl
depth causes performance deteriorations. Kakaee et al. [157] carried
out RCCI combustion simulations for different piston bowl geometry
(stock, bathtub and cylindrical) (Fig. 25). Bathtub bowl shows higher
NOx emissions than the stock and cylindrical bowl profiles, due to the
high temperature in the squish and ring pack crevice of the bathtub
profile (Fig. 26). It was also reported that thermal efficiency is in-
creased while increasing the bowl depth up to 1 mm but then it is re-
duced. The main factors involving in this activity are piston bowl area,
squish zone, combustion efficiency and heat transfer. By increasing
bowl depth, heat losses are increased due to more area to volume ratio,
but combustion efficiency is also improved. Benajes et al. [334]
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
experimentally investigated the influence of stock, stepped and bathtub
piston bowl geometry on RCCI mode heavy-duty engine. Stock piston
enhances the air-fuel mixing process resulting in earlier SOC than the
bathtub and stepped geometries. Bathtub piston has greater benefits in
terms of fuel consumption and soot emissions than stepped geometry up
to mid-engine loads. Stepped piston offers smooth and delayed com-
bustion process but worsens BSFC than the stock piston (Fig. 26).
Harish et al. [351] studied different CC geometries such as torroidal re-
entrant CC (TRCC), hemispherical CC (HCC), shallow depth re-entrant
CC (SDRCC) and torroidal CC (TCC) on engine analysis. Maximum cy-
linder gas pressure was observed in TRCC as 75.42 bar and HCC shows
minimum pressure of 71.12 bar. This is mainly due to the induced
squish and swirl flow of TRCC plays an important in the turbulence
motion which enhanced the air-fuel mixing. Similar research works
were done by Refs. [352,353] and its effects on the engine character-
istics shown in Fig. 27. HC and CO emissions are reduced by 8.62% and
13.55% in HCC and it becomes 17.74% and 15.72% respectively for
modified toroidal piston profile with spherical grooves (TSGCC). NOx
emissions for TRCC bowl configuration are more due to increased tur-
bulence and high in-cylinder gas temperature than HCC and RCC geo-
metries. Baseline HCC bowl configuration shows a greater area of high
soot regions compared to RCC and TRCC bowl configurations. In the
overall comparison, RCC configuration shows optimum performance in
RCCI mode engines than the HCC and TRCC configurations (Fig. 27).
Fig. 28. Different injection timings for LTC engines.
44
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
7. Conclusion
A review of performance, combustion and emission on the LTC
mode engine has been done. SI engine has lower thermal efficiency
compared to the diesel engine and it emits more HC and CO emissions.
NOx and soot emissions are primarily occurring in the region of high-
temperature kernel and rich fuel portion of the spray pattern. Hence,
the modification of the spray injection profile is one of the ways to
reduce the NOx and soot formations. The high-temperature environ-
ment can be reduced by several methods like PPLTC, HCCI, PCCI and
RCCI. Normally, LTC mode uses EGR, split injection, water injection,
fuel type, parameter modifications, etc. to control the harmful engine
emissions.
The summary of the literature review on the performance, com-
bustion and emissions on the LTC mode engine as follows.
• In LTC mode, the charge mixture preparation technique can be
broadly categorized to external charge preparation, internal charge
preparation and combined charge preparation. The in-cylinder
charge preparation divided into early, retard and split/multiple in-
jections is shown in Fig. 28. Any fuels can be used in HCCI mode, but
the combustion control is difficult. HCCI mode operated with lean
fuel mixture but misfire may happen, and in case of the rich fuel
mixture, the knock will occur. Fuel blends, EGR, VCR and VVT
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
techniques, etc. used to extend the operating range of the HCCI
mode engine. HCCI combustion produces nearly zero NOx and soot
emissions. However, during the engine operations, achieving of VVT
and VCR are more complicated.
• CO and HC emissions are reduced in PCCI combustion compared to
that of HCCI mode, but NOx and soot emissions are increased and
these emissions are lower than the CCM operation. In higher engine
loads, more amount of EGR is supplied to retard the onset com-
bustion process. RCCI mode is a new combustion strategy and it
reduced the problems associated with the CCM engine (high NOx
and soot), HCCI mode (lower operating range) and PCCI mode
(lower power output).
• Gasoline/diesel mostly used in the RCCI mode by the researchers
because of its better heating value, availability and engine design
criteria. Mostly, RCCI mode works around 16:1 (varies 9.2:1–19.9:1)
CR. To initiate the combustion process, the HRF is injected into the
cylinder at the desired crank angles. Alcoholic fuels such as ethanol,
methanol, propanol, etc., gaseous fuels such as hydrogen, CNG, LPG,
etc., biodiesel and vegetable oils are tried as fuel for RCCI/LTC
diesel engines by the researchers.
• Lower premixed fuel (up to 50%) used in low and medium engine
loads, engine thermal efficiency is maximized, and NOx and soot
emissions are reduced. If the RCCI mode engine is operated more
than 60% engine loads, the unexpected start of combustion and
cycle-to-cycle instability may have occurred. Alternatively, if in-
creasing direct injection fuel quantity, the combustion moves to-
wards the CCM resulting in higher NOx and soot emissions. If using
higher premixed fuel, the homogeneous fuel enters the all com-
bustion space resulting in more HC and CO emissions.
• Some RCCI mode used a split injection strategy for better combus-
tion control at higher engine load and speeds. Usually, SoPI varies
from 80° to 20° bTDC and the fraction of fuel injection is 10–30% of
Fig. 29. Effects of operating parameters in RCCI engine.
45
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
total fuel injection. SoPI depends on the fuel reactivity, percentage
fraction, EGR and working condition of the engine. The pilot in-
jection reduces the accumulation of HRF thereby reduced the
maximum cylinder gas temperature. Commonly, SoMI varies from
40° bTDC to 10° aTDC; retarded main fuel injection timing reduces
the maximum cylinder gas pressure and temperature thereby mini-
mized NOx emissions. The soot is suppressed while advancing the
SoMI timings. Earlier intake valve closing is favor for better thermal
efficiency and late take valve closing reduces the ringing intensity
and NOx emissions. Fig. 29 shows the effect of operating parameters
on the RCCI engine characteristics. Generally, lower cetane number
fuels increased CO, HC, ISFC and combustion noise. Higher volati-
lity and lighter weight fuels reduce HC and soot emissions.
8. Limitations of the study
This study has some potential limitations. This paper dealt with the
literature review on the advanced combustion modes such as various
low temperature combustion strategies. Hybrid engines, fuel cells and
renewable energy-based vehicle research also going on but these con-
cepts are beyond the scope of this paper. The properties required for the
fuels were discussed (port and direct, gaseous and liquid, etc.) whereas
the fuel production process could not be discussed. In general, alcohols
are produced from biomass through the fermentation process, more-
over, is the best way for alcohol production. But, the scenario for bio-
diesel is different as it can be produced through transesterification
(conventional method), Thesz-Boros-Kiraly (TBK), catalytic hydro-
deoxygenation (HDO), etc. Conventional method yields oxygenated
biodiesel (~11% oxygen) which causes more NOx emissions, TBK based
biodiesel contains (~20% oxygen) causes lower energy intensity and
HDO biodiesel has negligible oxygen molecules. In this article, all dif-
ferent properties of biodiesels belong to one roof, it may need the
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
reader's attention. After-treatment systems such as catalytic converters,
diesel particulate filter (DPF), diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC), selective
catalytic reduction (SCR), ammonia oxidation catalyst (AMOX) and
NOx trap system are not included this paper, but they have much in-
fluence on Euro-VI emission standard vehicles. Based on the literature
study, this article suggested that some better operating conditions for
LTC mode engines but not experimentally verified. The terms used in
this paper as it is given in the literature article like some articles PCCI
and RCCI terms are interchangeably used.
9. Scope of future research
RCCI engine can be operated in high engine loads with EGR sub-
stitution. This condition leads to higher HC and CO emissions. Different
fuel supply systems and operating conditions such as load, speed, EGR,
valve actuation mechanisms, charge conditions require a defined con-
trol to attain a better combustion process. This complex process re-
quires more expenditure, precision measurements, reliable devices and
better management control system. After-treatment strategies are re-
quired to meet stringent emission regulations. Catalytic converters are
commonly used in after-treatment methods. High conversion efficiency
catalysts are employed to lower down the CO, HC and NOx emissions.
The oxidation catalyst efficiently works around 400 °C but it difficult to
maintain in RCCI mode engine exhaust line. To maintain the required
temperature in the catalyst, the device should be placed near the engine
exhaust system or use auxiliary heaters, but it increases the engine size.
Otherwise, more research is essential for the catalyst converter. Fuel
supply strategy modifications may be essential; the LRF port injection
system provides homogeneous mixture throughout the combustion re-
gion. Boundary region of the cylinder walls and crevice volume charge
mixtures does not participate in the combustion process. This problem
can be reduced by direct injection of LRF first and HRF second in proper
crank angles. Also, split and multiple injections with different dwell
period, mass fractions and injection rate could be used. Instead of ga-
soline/diesel, biofuels and gaseous fuels could be used as a fuel. Carbon
capture and storage techniques may be employed to reduce the exhaust
emissions and the research is required in similar fields.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge S. Sreedhara, Professor,
Indian Institute of Technology-Bombay, Maharashtra; Pavan Prakash
Duvvuri, Combustion Research, Cummins Inc., Pune, Maharashtra and
R. Sakthivel, Amrita School of Engineering, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa
Vidyapeetham, Tamil Nadu, India. This research has been supported by
the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (51876083, 51776088), a Project Funded by the Priority
Academic Program Development of Jiangsu High Education
Institutions and High-tech Research Key laboratory of
Zhenjiang (SS2018002).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109404.
References
[1] Advanced combustion engines, Annual report. Energy Efficiency & Renewable
Energy, US Department of Energy; 2016.
[2] Combustion Engine Research Center, reportAnnual report 2017. Chalmers
University of Technology, Sweden.
[3] BP Statistical review of world energy. June 2018.
[4] Combustion Engine Research Centre, reportAnnual report 2016. Chalmers
University of Technology, Sweden.
[5] Cullen JM, Paoli L, Lupton RC. Probabilistic model allocating primary energy to
end-use devices. Energy Procedia 2017;142:2441–7https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2017.12.180.
46
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
[6] Cullen JM, Paoli L, Lupton RC. Useful energy balance for the UK: an uncertainty
analysis. Appl Energy 2018;228:176–88https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.
06.063.
[7] Cullan JM, Levi PG. Mapping Global Flows of chemicals: from fossil fuel feed-
stocks to chemical products. Environ Sci Technol 2018;52:1725–34. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.7b04573.
[8] Tanov S. Investigation of partially premixed combustion in an optical engine: in-
cylinder flow combustion characterization A doctoral thesis Energy sciences, Lund
University; 2016
[9] Zhou D. Numerical investigation of combustion process in reactivity controlled
compression ignition (RCCI) engine A doctoral thesis Mechanical Engineering,
National University of Singapore; 2017
[10] Reitz RD, Ganesh D. Review of high efficiency and clean reactivity controlled
compression ignition (RCCI) combustion in internal combustion engines. Prog
Energy Combust Sci 2015;46:12–71https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2014.05.003.
[11] Reitz RD. Directions in internal combustion engine research. Combust Flame
2013;160(1):1–8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2012.11.002.
[12] Ashok B, Nanthagopal K, Arvind M, Antony J, Tamilrasu A. Comparative analysis
on the effect of zinc oxide and ethanox as additives with biodiesel in CI engine.
Energy 2017;140:352–64https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.09.021.
[13] Nanthagopal K, Ashok B, Vignesh V, Anand V, Dinesh R. Study on the effect of
exhaust gas based fuel preheating device on ethanol-diesel blends operation in a
compression ignition engine. Clean Technol Environ Policy
2017;19(0):2379–92https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1426-x.
[14] Ashok B, Nanthagopal K, Jeevanantham AK, Pathikrit B, Dhruv M, Pranjal A. An
assessment of calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel fuelled diesel engine character-
istics using novel antioxidant additives. Energy Convers Manag
2017;148:935–43https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.06.049.
[15] Ashok B, Nanthagopal K, Rayapati S, Ajith J, Arvind M, Tamilarsu A. Experimental
studies on the effect of metal oxide and antioxidant additives with calophyllum
Inophyllum methyl eater in compression ignition engine. J Clean Prod
2017;166:474–84https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.050.
[16] Nanthagopal K, Ashok B, Saravanan B, Korah SM, Chandra S. Effect of next gen-
eration higher alcohols and calophyllum inophyllum methyl ester blends in diesel
engine. J Clean Prod 2018;180:50–63https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.
167.
[17] Ashok B, Kasianantham N, Balusamy S, MUniappan S, Reddy DMS, Suhash RV.
Mitigation of NOx and smoke emissions in a diesel engine using novel emulsified
lemon peel oil biofuel. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2018;25(25):25098–114https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2574-1.
[18] Yan F, Xu L, Wang Y. Application of hydrogen enriched natural gas in spark ig-
nition IC engines: from fundamental fuel properties to engine performances and
emissions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82(1):1457–88https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2017.05.227.
[19] Kazuhisa I, Takayuki F, Kazuki N, Kiyomi N. Combustion system with pre-mixture
controlled compression ignition. R&D Rev. Toyota CRDL 2006;41(3):35–46.
[20] Agarwal AK, Singh AP, Maurya RK. Evolution, challenges and path forward for low
temperature combustion engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2017;61:1–56https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2017.02.001.
[21] Azad AK, Rasul MG, Khan MMK, Sharma SC, Bhuiya MMK. Recent development of
biodiesel combustion strategies and modelling for compression ignition engines.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:1068–86https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.
12.024.
[22] Chao J, Zheng Z. A review on homogeneous charge compression ignition and low
temperature combustion by optical diagnostics. J Chem 2015. Article ID 910348
https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/910348.
[23] Li J, Yang W, Zhou D. Review on the management of RCCI engines. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2017;69:65–79https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.159.
[24] Jiaqiang E, Pham M, Zhao D, Deng Y, Le D, Zuo Wei. Effect of different technol-
ogies on combustion and emission of the diesel engine fueled with biodiesel: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;80:620–47https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.05.250.
[25] Noh HK, Soo-Young N. Effects of bioethanol on combustion and emissions in ad-
vanced CI engines: HCCI, PPC and GCI mode- a review. Appl Energy
2017;208:782–802https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.071.
[26] Nazemi Mohammadreza. Modeling and analysis of reactivity controlled com-
pression ignition (RCCI) combustion Master Thesis Michigan Technological
University; 2015.
[27] Panakarajupaaly RP, Mittal Gaurav. A computational investigation of double in-
jection strategy for ethanol PPCI. Energy Fuels 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/acs.
energyfuels.7b00382.
[28] Amin Paykani, Kakee Amir Hasan, Rahnama Pourya, Rolf Reitz D. Progress and
recent trends in reactivity controlled compression ignition engines. Int J of Eng
Res. 2015:1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468087415593013.
[29] Yao Mingfa. Combustion mode design with high efficiency and low emissions
controlled by mixtures stratification and fuel reactivity. Front Mech Eng 2015.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2015.00008.
[30] Yang W, Zhou D, Li J, Tay KL, Kraft M. Combustion modeling in RCCI engines with
a hybrid characteristic time combustion and closed reactor model. Appl Energy
2017;227:665–71https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.137.
[31] Preveena V, Leenus Jesu Martin M. A review on various after treatment techniques
to reduce NOx emissions in a CI engine. J Energy Inst 2018;91(5):704–20https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2017.05.010.
[32] Qu ZG, Xu HT, Luo ZQ, Wang N, Chen J, An L. Experimental study of the selective
catalytic reduction after-treatment for the exhaust emission of a diesel engine.
Appl Therm Eng 2019;147:198–2054https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
2018.10.067.
[33] Mehregan M, Moghiman M. Effects of nano-additives on pollutant emission and
engine performance in a urea-SCR equipped diesel engine fueled with blended
biodiesel. Fuel 2018;222:402–6https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.02.172.
[34] Godoi RHM, Borillo GC, Tadano YS, Godoi AFL. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and nitrated analogs associated to particulate matter emission from a euro
V-SCR engine fueled with diesel/biodiesel blends. Sci Total Environ
2018;644:675–82https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.007.
[35] Ho RJ, Yusoff MZ, Palanisamy K. Trend and future of diesel engine: development
of high efficiency and low emission low temperature combustion diesel engine.
IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 2013;16:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/16/1/012112.
[36] Yang W, Zhou D, Zhao F, Li J. Dual fuel RCCI engine combustion modeling with
detailed chemistry considering flame propagation in partially premixed combus-
tion. Appl Energy 2017;203:164–76https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.
021.
[37] Stephen Ciatti A. Compression ignition engines – revolutionary technology that
has civilized frontiers all over the globe from the industrial revolution into the
twenty-first century. Front Mech Eng 2015. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2015.
00005.
[38] Ahmadi R, Hosseini SM. Numerical investigation on adding/substituting hydrogen
in the CDC and RCCI combustion in a heavy duty engine. Appl Energy
2018;213:450–68https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.048.
[39] Kazuhiro Akihama. A point of contact between a φ-T map and engine combustion
concepts. J Combust Soc Japan 2014;56(178):291–7.
[40] Musculus MPB, Miles PC, Pickett LM. Conceptual models for partially premixed
low temperature diesel combustion. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2013;39:246–83https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2012.09.001.
[41] Noor CWM, Noor MM, Mamat R. Biodiesel as alternative fuel for marine diesel
engine applications: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;94:127–42https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.031.
[42] Khan TMY, Badruddin IA, Badarudin A, Banapurmath. Effects of engine variables
and heat transfer on the performance of biodiesel fuelled IC engines. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;44:682–91https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.025.
[43] Abedin MJ, Imran A, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Shahir. An overview on comparative
engine performance and emission characteristics of different techniques involved
in diesel engine as dual-fuel engine operation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;60:306–16https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.118.
[44] Singh VP, Tiwari SK, Singh R, Kumar N. Modification in combustion chamber
geometry of CI engines for suitability of biodiesel: a review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2017;79:1016–33https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.116.
[45] Rosha P, Dhir A, Mohapatra SK. Influence of gaseous fuel induction on the various
engine characteristics of a dual fuel compression ignition engine: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:3333–49https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.055.
[46] Ashok B, Nanthagopal K, Anand V, Aravind KM, Jeevantham AK, Balusamy S.
Effects of n-octanol as a fuel blend with biodiesel on diesel engine characteristics.
Fuel 2019;235:363–73https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.126.
[47] Ramalingam S, Rajendran S, Ganesh P. Performance improvement and exhaust
emissions reduction in biodiesel operated diesel engine through the use of oper-
ating parameters and catalytic converter: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2018;81:3215–22https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.069.
[48] Aldhaidhawi M, CHiriac R, Badescu V. Ignition delay, combustion and emission
characteristics of diesel engine fuelled with rapeseed biodiesel- a literature review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;73:178–86https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.
01.129.
[49] Huang H, Teng W, Liu Q, Zhou C, Wang Q, Wang X. Combustion performance and
emission characteristics of a diesel engine under low temperature combustion of
pine oil - diesel blends. Energy Convers Manag 2016;128:317–26https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2016.09.090.
[50] Goldsborough S, Simone H, Guillaume V, Wooldridge M, Curran J, Sung CJ.
Advances in rapid compression machine studies of low and intermediate tem-
perature auto ignition phenomena. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2017;63:1–78https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2017.05.002.
[51] Feng H, Zhang C, Wang M, Liu D, Yang X, Lee C. Availability analysis of n-hep-
tane/isooctane blends during low temperature engine combustion using a single
zone combustion model. Energy Convers Manag 2014;84:613–22https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.061.
[52] Wu B, Zhan Q, Yu X, Lv G, Nie X, Liu S. Effects of miller cycle and variable geo-
metry turbocharger on combustion and emissions in steady and transient cold
process. Appl Therm Eng 2017;118:621–9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2017.02.074.
[53] Kocher LE, Carrie Hall M, Karla Stricker, Fain David, Van Alstine Dan, Gregory
Shaver M. Robust oxygen fraction estimation for conventional and premixed
charge compression ignition engines with variable valve actuation. Contr Eng
Pract 2014;29:187–200https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2013.12.002.
[54] Imtenan S, Varman M, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Sajjad H, Arbab MI, Fattah R.
Impact of low temperature combustion attaining strategies on diesel engine
emissions for diesel and biodiesels: a review. Energy Convers Manag
2014;80:329–56https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.01.020.
[55] Thangaraja J, Kannan C. Effect of exhaust gas recirculation on advanced diesel
combustion and alternate fuels- a review. Appl Energy 2016;180:169–84https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.096.
[56] Praveen H. Comprehensive review on enabling reactivity controlled compression
ignition (RCCI) in diesel engines. Int Res Adv 2018;5(1):5–19.
[57] Girish BE, Neeraj S, Suryawanshi JG. Investigations on premixed charge com-
pression ignition (PCCI) engines: a review. Fluid Mech Fluid
47
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
2017:1455–62https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2743-4_139.
[58] Singh AP, Agarwal AK. Low temperature combustion: an advanced technology for
internal combustion engines. Advances in internal combustion engine research.
Energy Environ Sustain 2018:9–41https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7575-9_2.
[59] Drews P, Albin T, Hoffmann K, Vanegas A, Felsch C, Peters N, Abel D. Model based
optimal control for PCCI combustion engines. 6th IFAC Symposium Advances in
Automotive Control 2010. p. 288–93. https://doi.org/10.3182/20100712-3-DE-
2013.00154.
[60] Chuahy FDF, Kokjohn SL. Single fuel RCCI combustion using reformed fuel. 10thU
S National Combustion Meeting, 23–26. April 2017. p. 1–6.
[61] Fridriksson H, Sunden B, Tuner M, Andersson. Heat transfer in diesel and partially
premixed combustion engines; a computational fluid dynamics study. Heat Transf
Eng 2017;38(7):1481–95https://doi.org/10.1080/01457632.2016.1255086.
[62] Fridriksson H. Combustion bowl heat transfer analysis in diesel and PPC engines A
Thesis Lund University; 2013
[63] Dahlstrom J. A thesis Experimental investigations of combustion chamber heat
transfer in a light duty diesel engine. Lund University; 2016. report.
[64] Jahanian Omid, MortezaFathi, Shahbakhti Mahdi. Modeling and controller design
architecture for cycle-by-cycle combustion control of homogeneous charge com-
pression ignition (HCCI) engines – a comprehensive review. Energy Convers
Manag 2017;139:1–19https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.02.038.
[65] Wang Y, Xiao F, Zhao Y, Li D, Lei X. Study on cycle-by-cycle variations in a diesel
engine with dimethyl ether as port premixing fuel. Appl Energy
2015;143:58–70https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.12.079.
[66] Cheng T. Model based control for a modern automobile diesel engine Thesis The
University of Birmingham; 2015.
[67] Connor J, Musculus M. Post injections for soot reduction in diesel engines: a re-
view of current understanding. SAE Tech paper 2013;6(1). https://doi.org/10.
4271/2013-01-0917.
[68] Ilango T, Natarajan S. Effect of compression ratio on partially premixed charge
compression ignition engine fuelled with methanol diesel blends- an experimental
investigation. Int Mech Prod Eng 2014;2(8):41–5.
[69] Yanzhao A, Jasim Mohammed, Raman V, Perez FEH, Hong Im G, Johansson B.
Homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) and partially premixed com-
bustion (PPC) in compression ignition engine with low octane gasoline. Energy
2018;158:181–91https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.057.
[70] Ilango T, Natarajan S. Effect of compression ratio on partially premixed charge
compression ignition engine fuelled with methanol diesel blends-an experimental
investigation. Int Mech Prod Eng 2014;2(8). 2320-2092.
[71] Liu H, Ma S, Zheng Z, Zheng Z, Yao M. Study of the control strategies on soot
reduction under early injection conditions on a diesel engine. Fuel
2015;139:472–81https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.09.011.
[72] Han S, Choongsik B, Choi SB. Effects of operating parameters on mode transition
between low temperature combustion and conventional combustion in a light duty
diesel engine. Int J Engine Res 2012;14(3):231–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1468087412454249.
[73] Komninos NP, Rakopoulos CD. Heat transfer in HCCI phenomenological simula-
tion models: a review. Appl Energy 2016;181:179–209https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.08.061.
[74] Tudela WV, Desantes JM, Oliver JMG, Pintor DL, Schneider B, Boulouchos. Study
of the auto-ignition phenomenon of PRFs under HCCI conditions in a RCEMby
means of spectrometry. Appl Energy 2016;179:389–400https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.06.134.
[75] Megaritis A, Yap D, Wyszynski ML. An investigation into bioethanol homogeneous
charge compression ignition (HCCI) engine operation with residual gas trapping.
Energy Fuel 2004;18:1315–23. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef0400215.
[76] Ganesan S, Nagarajan G. Performance and emission analysis on mixed mode
homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) combustion of biodiesel fuel
with external mixture formation. SAE Int 2012. https://doi.org/10.4271/2011-01-
2450.
[77] Contino F, Foucher F, Dagaut P, Lucchini T, Errico GD, Rousselle CM.
Experimental and numerical analysis of nitric oxide effect on the ignition of iso-
octane in a single cylinder HCCI engine. Combust Flame
2013;160(8):1476–83https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2013.02.028.
[78] Yao M, Zheng Z, Liu H. Progress and recent trends in homogeneous charge com-
pression ignition (HCCI) engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2009;35:398–437.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2009.05.001.
[79] Kaiser SA, Wiemann S, Hegner R, Atakan B, Schulz C. Combined production of
power and syngas in an internal combustion engine – experiments and simulations
in SI and HCCI mode. Fuel 2018;215:40–5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.11.
002.
[80] Maurya RK, Saxena MR. Characterization of ringing intensity in a hydrogen-fueled
HCCI engine. Int J of Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(19):9423–37https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.194.
[81] Gharehghani A. Load limits of an HCCI engine fueled with natural gas, ethanol and
methanol. Fuel 2019;239:1001–14https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.11.066.
[82] Fukushima N, Katayama M, Naka Y, Oobayashi T, Shimura M, Nada Y, Tanahashi
M, Miyauchi T. Combustion regime classification of HCCI/PCCI combustion using
Lagrangian fluid particle tracking. Proc Combust Inst 2015;35(3):3009–17https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2014.07.059.
[83] Suyin G, Kiat H, Mun K. Homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI)
combustion: implementation and effects on pollutants in direct injection diesel
engines. Appl Energy 2011;88:559–67https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.
09.005.
[84] Vinod Babu M, Mdhu Murthy K, Amba PR. Butanol and pentanol: the promising
biofuel for CI engines – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
2017;78:1068–88https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.038.
[85] Reitz RD, Kokjohn SL, Hanson RM, Splitter DA. Experiments and modeling of dual
fuel HCCI and PCCI combustion using in-cylinder fuel blending. SAE Int J Eng
2000;2(2):24–39.
[86] UlasE, Niels L, Bart S, Goey PD. Modeling of PCCI combustion with FGM tabulated
chemistry. Fuel 2014;118:91–9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.10.073.
[87] Yao M, Zhng F, Liu HF, Yu J. Direct numerical simulation of n-heptane/air auto-
ignition with thermal and charge stratifications under partially-premixed charge
composition ignition (PCCI) engine related conditions. Appl Therm Eng
2016;104:516–26https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.05.100.
[88] Ying W, He Li, Zhou Longbao, Li Wei. Effects of DME pilot quantity on the per-
formance of a DME PCCI-DI engine. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51:648–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.10.023.
[89] Drews P, Albin T, Hebeler FJ, Peters N, Abel D. Fuel efficient model based optimal
MIMO control for PCCI engines. Proceeding of the 18th World Congress 2011. p.
12998–3003. https://doi.org/10.3182/20110828-6-IT-1002.01138.
[90] Jia M, Xie M, Wang T, Peng Z. The effect of injection timing and intake valve close
timing on performance and emissions of diesel PCCI engine with a full engine cycle
CFD simulation. Appl Energy 2011;88:2967–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2011.03.024.
[91] Horibe N, Harada S, Ishiyama T, Shioji M. Improvement of premixed charge
compression based combustion by two stage injection. Int J Engine Res
2009;71(10):71–9. https://doi.org/10.1243/14680874JER02709.
[92] Wang T, Jia M, Xie M, Liu H, Lam W. Numerical simulation of cavitation in the
conical spray nozzle for diesel premixed charge compression ignition engines. Fuel
2011;90:2652–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.04.017.
[93] Pandey Sunil Kumar, Akella Sarma, Ravikrishna RV. Novel fuel injection strategies
for PCCI operation of a heavy duty turbocharged diesel engine. Appl Therm Eng
2018;143:883–98https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.08.001.
[94] Agarwal AK, Verma Gaurav, Sharma Hemant, SukratThipse S. Spark assisted
premixed charge compression ignition engine prototype development. Fuel
Process Technol 2016;152:413–20https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.07.006.
[95] James EP, Prikhodko V, Storey JME, Barone TL, Samuel AL, Kass MD, Huff SP.
Emissions from premixed charge compression ignition (PCCI) combustion and
effect on emission control devices. Catal Today 2010;151:278–84. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cattod.2010.02.053.
[96] Kocher LE, Carrie Hall M, Van Alstine Dan, Magee Mark, Gregory Shaver M.
Nonlinear model based control of combustion timing in premixed charge com-
pression ignition. J Automob Eng 2014;228(1):703–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0954407014521797.
[97] Wang Y, Liu H, Huang Z, Li Z. Study on combustion and emission of a dimethyl
ether-diesel dual fuel premixed charge compression ignition combustion engine
with LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) as ignition inhibitor. Energy
2016;96:278–85https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.056.
[98] Han D, Ickes AM, Assains DN, Huang Z, Bohac SV. Attainment and load extension
of high efficiency premixed low temperature combustion with dieseline in a
compression ignition engine. Energy Fuels 2010;24:3517–25. https://doi.org/10.
1021/ef100269c.
[99] Li T, Moriwaki R, Ogawa H, Kakizaki R, Murase M. Dependence of premixed low
temperature diesel combustion on fuel ignitability and volatility. Int J Engine Res
2011;13:14–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468087411422852.
[100] Kokjohn SL, Hanson RM, Splitter DA, Reitz RD. Fuel reactivity controlled com-
pression ignition (RCCI): a pathway to controlled high efficiency clean combus-
tion. Int J Engine Res 2011;12:209–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1468087411401548.
[101] Calvo BJV, Molina Alcaide SA, Garcia Martinez A, Belarte Manes E, Vanvolsem M.
An investigation on RCCI combustion in a heavy duty diesel engine using in-cy-
linder blending of diesel and gasoline fuels. Appl Therm Eng 2014;63(1):66–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.10.052.
[102] Pedrozo VB, May I, Lanzanova TDM, Zhao H. Potential of internal EGR and
throttled operation for low load extension of ethanol diesel dual fuel reactivity
controlled compression ignition combustion on a heavy duty engine. Fuel
2016;179:391–405https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.03.090.
[103] Liu H, Zheng Z, Xia M, Ma G, Yao M. Experimental study on combustion and
emissions of n-butanol/biodiesel under both blended fuel mode and dual fuel RCCI
mode. Fuel 2018;226:240–51https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.03.151.
[104] Zhou D, Yang Wenming, Li jing, Tay Kun Lin, Chou Siaw Kiang, Kraft Markus.
Efficient combustion modeling in RCCI engine with detailed chemistry. Energy
Procedia 2017;105:1582–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/j.egypro.2017.03.504.
[105] Guardiola C, Benjamin PLA, Garcia Antonio, Boronat Vicente. Optimal heat re-
lease shaping in a reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) engine. Contr
Theory Technol 2017;15(2):117–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11768-017-
6155-5.
[106] Wu Y, Hanson R, Reitz RD. Investigation of combustion phasing control strategy
during reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) multi-cylinder engine
load transitions. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2014;136:1–10.
[107] Splitter D, Wissink M, Delvescovo D, Reitz R. RCCI engine operation towards 60%
thermal efficiency. SAE Int 2013. https://doi.org/10.4271/2013-01-0279.
[108] Salahi MM, Esfahanian V, Gharehghani A, Mirsalim M. Investigating the reactivity
controlled compression ignition (RCCI) combustion strategy in a natural gas/
diesel fueled engine with a pre-chamber. Energy Convers Manag
2017;132:40–53https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.019.
[109] Hawkes ER, Krisman A, Kook S, Sjoberg M, Dec JE. On the potential of ethanol fuel
stratification to extend the high load limit in stratified charge compression ignition
engines. Fuel 2012;99:45–54https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.04.001.
[110] Sluder CS, Wagner RM. An estimate of diesel high efficiency clean combustion
48
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
impacts on FTP-75 after treatment requirements. SAE International; 2006. Id:
2006-01-3311.
[111] Cummins Columbus, Stanton DW. High efficiency, clean combustion Final Report:
DE-FC26-05NT42418 US Department of Energy; 2010
[112] Dhar A, Tauzia Xavier, Maiboon Alain. Phenomenological models for prediction of
spray penetration and mixture properties for different injection profiles. Fuel
2017;171:136–42https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.12.022.
[113] Pos R, Wardle Robert, Cracknell Roger, Iionel Ganippa. Spatio-temporal evolution
of diesel sprays at the early start of injection. Appl Energy
2017;2015:391–8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.092.
[114] Du Wei, Zhang Qiankun, Bao Wenhua, Lou Juejue. Effects of injection pressure on
spray structure after wall impingement. Appl Therm Eng 2017https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.10.083.
[115] Wang Z, Li Yanfi, Guo Hengjie, Wang Chaongming, Xu Hongming. Microscopic
and macroscopic characterization of spray impingement under flash boiling con-
ditions with the application of split injection strategy. Fuel
2018;212:315–25https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.10.028.
[116] Wang H, Saggese C, Singh AV, Xue X. The distillation curve and sooting propensity
of a typical jet fuel. Fuel 2019;235:350–62https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.
07.099.
[117] Anderson JE, Anderson VF, Wallinton TJ, Mueller SA. Nielsen. Distillation curves
for alcohol-gasoline blends. Energy Fuels 2010;24:2683–91. https://doi.org/10.
1021/ef9014795.
[118] Smith BL, Ott LS, Bruno TJ. Composition explicit distillation curves of diesel fuel
with glycol ether and glycol ester: fuel analysis metrology to enable decreased
particulate emissions. Environ Sci Technol 2008;42(20):7682–9. https://doi.org/
10.1021/es800067c.
[119] Fattah IMR, Ming C, Chen QN, Wehrfritz A. Spray and combustion investigation of
post injections under low temperature combustion conditions with biodiesel.
Energy Fuels 2018;32(8):8727–42. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.
8b00284.
[120] Lu X, Han D, Huang Z. Fuel design and management for the control of advanced
compression-ignition combustion modes. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2011;37:741–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2011.03.003.
[121] Keromnes Alan, Zhang Yingjia, Ei-Merhubi Hilal, Lefort Benolte, Moyne Luis Le,
Henny Curran J. Probing the low temperature chemistry of ethanol via the addi-
tion of dimethyl ether. Combust Flame 2018;190:74–86https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
combustflame.2017.11.011.
[122] Krishnamoorthi M, Malayalamurthi R. Engine characteristics analysis of chaul-
moogra oil blends and corrosion analysis of injector nozzle using scanning electron
microscopy/energy dispersive spectroscopy. Energy 2018;165:1292–319https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.112.
[123] Sakthivel R, Ramesh K, Purnachandran R, Mohamed Shameer P. A review on the
properties, performance and emission aspects of the third generation biodiesels.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;82(3):2970–92https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2017.10.037.
[124] Shuai S, Chen W, Wang J. Effect of the cetane number on the combustion and
emission of diesel engines by chemical kinetics modeling. Energy Fuel
2010;24:856–62. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef900993g.
[125] Wu N. Auto-ignition and emission characteristics of gaseous fuel direct injection
compression ignition combustion A Doctoral Thesis The University of British
Columbia; 2007.
[126] Bansal Gaurav, Hong Im G. Auto-ignition and front propagation in low tempera-
ture combustion engine environments. Combust Flame 2011;158:2105–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2011.03.019.
[127] Moiz Ahmed Abdul. Low temperature split injection spray combustion: ignition,
flame stabilization and soot formation characteristics in diesel engine conditions
Michigan Technological University; 2016. A thesis, open access dissertation.
[128] Garcia Oliver JM, Garcia A, Gil A, Pachano L. Study of air flow interaction with
pilot injections in a diesel engine by means of PIV Measurements. SAE Int 2017.
https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0617.
[129] Sarangi AK, Garner CP, Gordon TC, Davy MH, Wahab E, Peckham MS. Effects of
engine operating parameters on diesel low temperature combustion with split fuel
injection. J Automob Eng 2012;226(1):1271–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0954407012440937.
[130] Maghbouli A, Lucchini T, Gianluca D, Onorati A. Numerical simulation of non-
reacting diesel fuel sprays under low temperature late injection operating condi-
tions. Energy Procedia 2015;81:960–6https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.12.
154.
[131] Jeftic M, Reader GT, Zheng M. Impacts of low temperature combustion and diesel
post injection on the in-cylinder production of hydrogen in a lean burn com-
pression ignition engine. Int J of Hydrogen Energy 2016https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2016.11.008.
[132] Vishwanath Gokul, Rolf Reitz D. Application of a semi-detailed soot modeling
approach for conventional and low temperature diesel combustion – part I: model
performance. Fuel 2015;139:757–70https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.08.026.
[133] Niemeyer KE, Daly SR, Cannella WJ, Hagen CL. Investigation of the LTC fuel
performance index for oxygenated reference fuel blends. Fuel
2015;155:14–24https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.04.010.
[134] Kim J, Park SS, Bae C. The effects of late intake valve closing and different cam
profiles on the in-cylinder flow field and the combustion characteristics of a
compression ignition engine. J Automob Eng 2017;232:853–65. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0954407017711357.
[135] Fu J, Li Q, Liu J, Liao C. Comparative study on the pumping losses between
continuous variable valve lift (CVVL) engine and variable valve timing (VVT)
engine. Appl Therm Eng 2018;137:710–20https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
applthermaleng.2018.04.017.
[136] Ozsoysai OA, Basaran HU. Effects of application of variable valve timing on the
exhaust gas temperature improvement in a low load diesel engine. Appl Therm
Eng 2017;122:758–67https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.04.098.
[137] Kyrtatos P, Zivolic A, Bruckner C, Boulouchos. Cycle-by-cycle variations of NO
emissions in diesel engines under long ignition delay conditions. Combust Flame
2017;178:82–96https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2016.12.025.
[138] Gharehghani A, Kakoee Alireza, Bakhshan Younes, Aval SM. An improvement of a
lean burning condition of natural/diesel RCCI engine with a pre-combustion by
using hydrogen. Energy Convers Manag 2018;166:489–99https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2018.04.063.
[139] Zheng Z, Liu Haifeng, Ma Guixing, Ma Naifeng, Huang Haozhong, Yao Mingfa.
Effects of charge concentration and reactivity stratification on combustion and
emission characteristics of a PFI-DI dual injection engine under low load condi-
tion. Fuel 2018;231:26–36https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.05.027.
[140] Molina S, Garcia Antonio, Serrano Javier Mansalve, Estepa Daniel. Miller cycle for
improved efficiency, load range and emissions in a heavy duty running under
reactivity controlled compression ignition combustion. Appl Therm Eng
2018;136:161–8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.02.106.
[141] Nazemi M, Shahbakhti M. Modeling and analysis of fuel injection parameters for
combustion and performance of an RCCI engine. Appl Energy
2016;165:135–50https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.093.
[142] Park SH, Shin Dalho, Park Jeonghyun. Effect of ethanol on the combustion and
emission characteristics of a dimethyl ether-ethanol dual fuel reactivity controlled
compression ignition engine. Appl Energy 2016;182:243–52https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.101.
[143] Salahi MM, Esfahanian Vahid, Gharehghani Ayatallah, Mirsalim Mostafa.
Investigation the reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) combustion
strategy in a natural gas/diesel fuelled engine with a pre-chamber. Energy Convers
Manag 2017;132:40–53https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.019.
[144] Anand K, Murugesa Pandian M. Experimental optimization of reactivity controlled
compression ignition combustion in a light duty diesel engine. Appl Therm Eng
2018;138:48–61https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.04.045.
[145] Han W, Pan Suozhu, Huang Yaxing. An experimental investigation on multi-cy-
linder RCCI engine fuelled with 2-butanol/diesel. Energy Convers Manag
2017;154:92–101https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.10.047.
[146] Aydin H, ZerrrakkiIsik Mehmet. Analysis of ethanol RCCI application with saf-
flower biodiesel blends in a high load diesel power generator. Fuel
2016;184:248–60https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.07.017.
[147] Paykani A, Kakaee Amir Hasan, Rahnama Pourya. CFD study of reactivity con-
trolled compression ignition (RCCI) combustion in a heavy duty diesel engine.
Period Polytech Transp Eng 2015;43(4):177–83. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPtr.
7756.
[148] Jia M, Xu Guangfu, Li Yaopeng, Chang Yachao, Wang T. Potential of reactivity
controlled compression ignition (RCCI) combustion coupled with variable valve
timing (VVT) strategy for meeting Euro 6 emission regulations and high fuel ef-
ficiency in a heavy duty diesel engine. Energy Convers Manag
2018;171:683–98https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.034.
[149] Wang Y, Yao Mingfa, Li Tie, Zhang Weijing, Zheng Z. A parametric study for
enabling reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) operation in diesel
engines at various engine loads. Appl Energy 2016;175:389–402https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.095.
[150] Wang Y, Zhu zhong Wen, Yao Mingfa, Li Tie, Zhang W, Zheng Z. An investigation
into the RCCI engine operation under low load and its achievable operational
range at different engine speeds. Energy Convers Manag
2016;124:399–413https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.07.026.
[151] Li Y, Jia M, Chang Y, Xu Zhen, Xu G, Liu Hong, Wang T. Principle of determining
the optimal operating parameters based on fuel properties and initial conditions
for RCCI engines. Fuel 2018;216:284–95https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.12.
010.
[152] KhoshbakhtiSaray Rahim, Mehdi Lashkarpour S, Najafi Mohammad. Multi-zone
model for reactivity controlled compression ignition engine based on CFD ap-
proach. Energy 2018;156:213–28https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.084.
[153] Jia M, Xiao J, Cheng Yachao, Li Y, Xu Zhen, Xu G, Liu Hong. Numerical optimi-
zation and comparative study of n-butanol concentration stratification combustion
and n-butanol/diesel reactivity stratification combustion for advanced compres-
sion ignition (CI) engine. Fuel 2018;213:83–97https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.
2017.10.104.
[154] Liu H, Zheng Zunqing, Xia Mingtao, Wang Xiaofeng, Yao Mingfa. Experimental
study on combustion and emissions of dual fuel RCCI mode fueled with biodiesel/
n-butanol, diesel/2,5-dimethylfuran and biodiesel/ethanol. Energy 2018https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.015.
[155] Garcia Antonio, Benajas Jesus, Molina Santiago, belarte Eduardo, Vanvolsem
Michel. An investigation on RCCI combustion in a heavy duty diesel engine using
in-cylinder blending of diesel and gasoline fuels. Appl Therm Eng
2014;63:66–76https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.10.052.
[156] Hosseini R, Gharehghani Ayatallah, Mirsalim Mostafa, Ali Jazayeri S, Yusaf Talal.
An experimental study on reactivity controlled compression ignition engine fueled
with biodiesel/natural gas. Energy 2015;89:558–67https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2015.06.014.
[157] Kakaee Amir Hasan, Amin Paykani, Partovi Babak, Ali NasiriToosi. Effects of
piston bowl geometry on combustion and emissions characteristics of a natural
gas/diesel RCCI engine. Appl Therm Eng 2016;102:1462–72https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.03.162.
[158] Kokjohn SL, Hanson RM, Splitter DA, Reitz RD. Fuel reactivity controlled com-
pression ignition (RCCI): a pathway to controlled high-efficiency clean
49
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
combustion. Int J Engine Res 2010;12:209–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1468087411401548.
[159] Jia M, Li Y, Liu Yaodong, Xie Maozhao. Numerical study on the combustion and
emission characteristics of methanol/diesel reactivity controlled compression ig-
nition (RCCI) engine. Appl Energy 2013;106:184–97https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2013.01.058.
[160] Zheng Z, Liu Haifeng, Ma Guixing, Yao Mingfa. Effects of port injection of hydrous
ethanol on combustion and emission characteristics in dual-fuel reactivity con-
trolled compression ignition (RCCI) mode. Energy 2018;145:592–602https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.089.
[161] Mikulski M, bekdemir Cemil. Understanding the role of low reactivity fuel stra-
tification in a dual fuel RCCI engine- A simulation study. Appl Energy
2017;191:689–708https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.080.
[162] Park SH, Yoon Seung Hyun. Effects of dual-fuel combustion strategies on com-
bustion and emission characteristics in reactivity controlled compression ignition
(RCCI). Fuel 2016;181:310–8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.04.118.
[163] Gawale GR, Srinivasulu GN. Numerical and experimental investigations on a dual
fuel HCCI engine by using ethanol as primary fuel and diesel as secondary fuel for
NOx reduction and better performance. Int J Ambient Energy 2018https://doi.
org/10.1080/01430750.2018.1472645.
[164] Ji M, Zhen Xu, Li Yaopeng, Cheng Yacho, Xu Guangfu, Xu Leilei, Lu Xingacai.
Computational optimization of fuel supply, syngas composition and intake con-
ditions for a Syngas/diesel RCCI engine. Fuel 2018;234:120–34https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.fuel.2018.07.003.
[165] Zhang C, Zhang Chao, Le Xue, Li Yangyang. Combustion characteristics and op-
eration range of a RCCI combustion engine fueled with direct injection n-heptane
and pipe injection n-butanol. Energy 2017;125:439–48https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2017.02.148.
[166] Ebrahimi M, Najafi Mohammed, Ali Jazayeri Seyed, Mohannadzadeh Ali Reza. A
detail simulation of reactivity controlled compression ignition combustion
strategy in a heavy-duty diesel engine run on natural gas/diesel fuel. Int J Engine
Res 2017;19(7):774–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468087417730486.
[167] Gross CW, Reitz Rolf. Investigation of study state RCCI operation in a light-duty
multi-cylinder engine using dieseline. SAE Int J Eng 2017. https://doi.org/10.
4271/2017-01-0761.
[168] Chuahy FDF, Sage Kokjohn L. Effects of the direct-injected fuels physical and
chemical properties on dual-fuel combustion. Fuel 2017;207:729–40https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.06.039.
[169] Mohebbi M, Reyhanian Masoud, Ghofrani Iraj, Aziz Azhar Abdul, Hosseini Vahid.
Availability analysis on combustion of n-heptane and isooctane blends in a re-
activity controlled compression ignition engine. J Automob Eng 2017. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0954407017731167.
[170] Vescovo DD, Kokjohn Sage, Reitz Rolf. The effects of charge preparation, fuel
stratification and premixed fuel chemistry on reactivity controlled compression
ignition (RCCI) combustion. SAE Int J Eng 2017. https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-
01-0773.
[171] Pandian MM, Krishnasamy Anand. A comparison of conventional and reactivity
controlled compression ignition (RCCI) combustion modes in a small single cy-
linder air cooled diesel engine. SAE Int J Eng 2017. https://doi.org/10.4271/
2017-01-2365.
[172] Storey JME, Scott Curran J, Samuel Lewis A, Barone Teresa L, Adam B Dempsey,
Moses Debusk Melanie, Reed Hanson M. Evaluation and current understanding of
physicochemical characterization of particulate matter from reactivity controlled
compression ignition combustion on a multi-cylinder light duty engine. Int J
Engine Res 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468087416661637.
[173] Kavuri C, Jordan Paz, Sage Kokjohn L. A compression of reactivity controlled
compression ignition (RCCI) and gasoline compression ignition (GCI) strategies at
high load, low speed conditions. Energy Convers Manag 2016;127:324–41https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.09.026.
[174] Dong Shijun, Ou Biao, Cheng Xiaobei. Comparisons of the cyclic variability of
gasoline/diesel and ethanol/diesel dual fuel combustion based on a diesel engine.
SAE Int J Eng 2017. https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-5001.
[175] Flavio Chuahy DF, Sage Kokjohn L. Single fuel RCCI combustion using reformed
fuel. 10th US National Combustion Meeting. 2017. April 26-27, College park,
Maryland.
[176] Naga NithinTejaKondipati. Experimental study, modeling and controller design
for an RCCI engine A Thesis Master of Science, Michigan Technological University;
2016. report.
[177] Liu Jie, Wang Junle, Zhao Hongbo. Optimization of the injection parameters and
combustion chamber geometries of a diesel/natural gas RCCI engine. Energy
2018;164:837–52https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.064.
[178] Paykani A, Hasan Amir, PouryaRahnama. Influence of fuel composition on com-
bustion and emissions characteristics of natural gas/diesel RCCI engine. J Nat Gas
Sci Eng 2015;25:58–65https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.04.020.
[179] Thirumalini S, CharithaV Prasad M, Srihari S. Investigation on performance and
emissions of RCCI fuel combustion on diesel-biodiesel in a light duty engine.
Renew Energy 2018;134:1081–8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.048.
[180] Reed Hanson, Ritz Rolf. Investigation of cold starting and combustion mode
switching as methods to improve low load RCCI operation. ICEF 2015. Article
1093, November 8-11, Houston, Tx, USA.
[181] Wu Yifeng, Reed Hanson, Rolf Reitz D. Investigation of combustion phasing con-
trol strategy during reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) multi-
cylinder engine load transitions. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2014;136:1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4027190.
[182] Ryan Walker N, Flavio Chuahy DF, Rolf Reitz D. Comparison of diesel pilot igni-
tion (DPI) and reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) in a heavy duty
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
engine. ICEF 2015. Article 1128, November 8-11, Houston, Tx, USA.
[183] Martin Wissink L, Scott Curran J, Kavuri Chaitanya, Sage Kokjohn L. Spray wall
interactions in a small bore multicylinder engine operating with reactivity con-
trolled compression ignition. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2018;140:1–8. https://
doi.org/10.1115/1.4039817.
[184] Jing Li, Yang Wenming, Hui An, Zhou Dezhi, Kraft Markus. Application of dy-
namic φ-T map: analysis on a natural gas/diesel fueled RCCI engine. J Eng Gas
Turbines Power 2016;138:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4032712.
[185] Ebrahimi M, Najafi Mohammad, Ali Jazayeri Seyed. Artificial neural network to
identify RCCI combustion mathematical model for a heavy duty diesel engine
fueled with natural gas and diesel oil. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 2018;40:407.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-018-1328-9.
[186] Scott Curran J, Gao Zhiming, Robert Wagner M. Reactivity controlled compression
ignition drive cycle emissions and fuel economy estimations using vehicle systems
simulations. Int J of Eng Res. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468087414562258.
[187] Shankar VSB, Sajid M, Morganti Kai, Sarathy Mani. Primary reference fuels (PRFs)
as surrogates for low sensitivity gasoline fuels. SAE Int J Eng 2016. https://doi.
org/10.4271/2016-01-0748.
[188] Ali Solouk, Shahbakhti Mahdi. Energy Optimization and fuel economy investiga-
tion of a series hybrid electric vehicle integrated with diesel/RCCI engines.
Energies 2016;9:1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9121020.
[189] Gao Z, Scott Curran J, Stuart Daw, Robert Wagner M. Light duty drive cycle si-
mulations of diesel engine out exhaust properties for an RCCI enabled vehicle. 8th
US National Combustion Meeting. 2013. Internal Combustion Engine, Paper
070IC-0220.
[190] Osama Ghazal H. Reducing diesel engine emission using reactivity controlled
approach. J Ecol Eng 2018;19(1):94–103https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/
79415.
[191] Dempsey AB, Ryan Walker N, Gingrich Eric, Rolf Reitz D. Comparison of low
temperature combustion strategies for advanced compression ignition engines
with a focus on controllability. Combust Sci Technol 2014;186(2):210–41. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00102202.2013.858137.
[192] Splitter Derek, martin Wissink, Delvescovo Dan, Reitz Rolf. RCCI engine operation
towards 60% thermal efficiency. SAE Int J Eng 2013. https://doi.org/10.4271/
2013-01-0279.
[193] Singh AP, Agarwal Avinash Kumar. CI/PCCI combustion mode switching of die-
sohol fueled production engine. SAE Int J Eng 2017. https://doi.org/10.4271/
2017-01-0738.
[194] Garcia Oliver J, Garcia J, Gil A, Pachano L. Study of air flow interaction with pilot
injections in a diesel engine by means of PIV measurements. SAE Int J Eng
2017;10(3). https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0167.
[195] Bae C, Shim Euijoon, Park Hyunwook. Intake air strategy for low HC and CO
emissions in dual-fuel (CNG diesel) premixed charge compression ignition engine.
Appl Energy 2018;225:1068–77https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.060.
[196] Lee Jeongwoo, Chu Sanghyun, Kang Jaegu, Min Kyoungdoug. Operating strategy
for gasoline/diesel dual fuel premixed compression ignition in a light duty diesel
engine. Int J Automot Technol 2017;18(6):943–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12239-017-0092-7.
[197] Min K, Lee Jeongwoo, Chu Sanghyun, Chu Jarhyun, Choi Hoimyung. Effect of the
diesel injection strategy on the combustion and emissions of propane/diesel dual
fuel premixed charge compression ignition engines. Energy
2015;93:1041–52https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.032.
[198] Prasanth K, Srihari S. Emission and performance characteristics of a PCCI-DI en-
gine fueled with cotton seed oil biodiesel blends. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci
2016;11(9):5965–70.
[199] Broatch A, Torrengrosa AJ, Garcia A, Monico LF. Sensitivity of combustion noise
and NOx and soot emissions to pilot injection in PCCI diesel engines. Appl Energy
2013;104:149–57https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.11.040.
[200] Kim HI, Kim YJ, Lee KH, Jeong HY, Ikeda Y. Investigation on the flame char-
acteristics in a PCCI engine using endoscope system with micro-cassegrain. Int J
Automot Technol 2014;15(7):1063–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12239-014-
0110-y.
[201] Singh AP, Jain Ayush, Agarwal AK. Fuel injection strategy for PCCI engine fueled
by mineral diesel and biodiesel blends. Energy Fuel 2017;31(8):8594–607.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b03393.
[202] Tian H, Long Wuqiang, Li Bo, Cao Jianlin, Meng Xiangyu, Tian Jiangping, Cui
Jingchen. Effects of dual direct injection parameters on performance of fuel jet
controlled compression ignition mode on a high speed light duty engine. Fuel
2019;235:658–69https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.08.043.
[203] Guo L, Du Jiakun, Sun Wanchen, Xiao Senlin, Tan Manzhi, Li Guoliang, Fan Luyan.
Experimental study on fuel economics and emissions of direct injection premixed
combustion engine fueled with gasoline/diesel blends. Energy Convers Manag
2015;100:300–9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.04.076.
[204] Lim OckTaeck, Putrasari Yanuandri. Performance and emission of gasoline com-
pression ignition engine fueled with 5 and 20% gasoline-biodiesel blends under
single injection strategy. Energy Procedia 2017;105:1743–50. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.egypro.2017.03.501.
[205] Guardiola C, Pla B, Bares P, Barbier A. A combustion phasing control-oriented
model applied to an RCCI engine. IFAC Papers Online 2018;51(31):119–24https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.10.022.
[206] Theinnoi Kampanart, Suksompong Porjade, Temwutthikun Warirat. Engine per-
formance of dual fuel operation with in-cylinder injected diesel fuels and in-port
injected DME. Energy Procedia 2017;142:461–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2017.12.072.
[207] Wang Y, Liu Hong, Huang Zhiyong, Liu Zhensheng. Study on combustion and
emission of a dimethyl ether-diesel dual-fuel premixed charge compression
50
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
ignition combustion engine with LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) as ignition in-
hibitor. Energy 2016;96:278–85https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.056.
[208] Broatch A, Torregrosa AJ, Novella R, Gomez Soriano J, Monico LF. Impact of
gasoline and diesel blends on combustion noise and pollutant emissions in pre-
mixed charge compression ignition engines. Energy 2017;137:58–68https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.010.
[209] Wang Y, Zhao Yuwei, Fan Xiao, Li Dongchang. Combustion and emission char-
acteristics of a diesel engine with DME as port premixing fuel under different
injection timing. Energy Convers Manag 2014;77:52–60https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2017.07.010.
[210] Mancaruso Ezio, Vaglieco Bianca Maria. Spectroscopic analysis of the phases of
premixed combustion in a compression ignition engine fuelled with diesel and
ethanol. Appl Energy 2015;143:164–75https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.
01.031.
[211] Wing Y, Zhao Yuwei, Li Dongchang, Xiong Lei, Liu Shenghua. Combustion and
emission characteristics of a DME (dimethyl ether) diesel dual fuel premixed
charge compression ignition engine with EGR (exhaust gas recirculation). Energy
2014;72:608–17https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.086.
[212] Jia M, Li Yaopeng, Xie Maozhao, Wang Tianyou. Numerical evaluation of the
potential of late intake valve closing strategy for diesel PCCI (premixed charge
compression ignition) engine in a wide speed and load range. Energy
2013;51:203–15https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.12.041.
[213] Agarwal AK, Jain Ayush, Singh Akilendra Pratap. Effects of split fuel injection and
EGR on NOx and PM emission reduction in a low temperature combustion (LTC)
mode diesel engine. Energy 2017;122:249–64https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2017.01.050.
[214] Jia Ming, Li Yaopeng, Xie Maozhao, Wang Tianyou, Wang Hu, Rolf Reitz D. The
potential of high load extension by using late intake valve closing for a diesel
premixed charge compression ignition (PCCI) engine. Energy Procedia
2015;66:33–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.02.018.
[215] Bae C, Rohani Behzad, Park Stephen Sungson. Effects of injection strategy on
smoothness, emissions and soot characteristics of PCCI-conventional diesel mode
transition. Appl Therm Eng 2016;93:1033–42https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2015.09.075.
[216] Iemmolo Daniele, Ambrosio Stefano, Mancarella Alessandro, Vitolo Roberto.
Preliminary optimization of the PCCI combustion mode in a diesel engine through
a design of experiments. Energy Procedia 2016;100:909–16. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.egypro.2016.11.115.
[217] Srihari S, Thirumalini. Investigation on reduction of emission in PCCI-DI engine
with biofuels blends. Renew Energy 2017;114:1232–7https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2017.08.008.
[218] Elkelawy Medhat, Elzahaby AM, Bastawissi HA, Mostafa SE, Naceb AM. Kinetic
modeling and experimental study on the combustion, performance and emission
characteristics of a PCCI engine fueled with ethanol-diesel blends. Egyptian J
Petrol 2018;27(4):927–37https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2018.02.003.
[219] Ravikrishna RV, Pandey Sunil Kumar, Akella Sarma. Novel fuel injection strategies
for PCCI operation of a heavy duty turbocharged diesel engine. Appl Therm Eng
2018;143:883–98https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.08.001.
[220] Ambrosio DS, Ferrari A. Effects of exhaust gas recirculation in diesel engines
featuring late PCCI type combustion strategies. Energy Convers Manag
2015;100:1269–80https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.08.001.
[221] Agarwal AK, Jain Ayush, Singh Akilendra Kumar. Effects of injection parameters
on combustion stability and emissions of a mineral diesel fueled partially pre-
mixed charge compression ignition (PCCI) engine. Appl Energy
2017;190:658–69https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.164.
[222] Korkmaz M, Zweigel Rene, Jochim Bernhard, Beeckmann Joachim, Abel Dirk,
Pitsch Heinz. Triple injection strategy for model based control of premixed charge
compression ignition diesel engine combustion. Int J Engine Res
2017;19(2):230–40https://doi.org/10.1177/%2F1468087417730485.
[223] Min Kyoungdoug, Kang Jaegu, Chu Sanghyum, Lee Jeongwoo, Kim Gyujin. Effects
of operating parameters on diesel/propane dual fuel premixed compression igni-
tion in a diesel engine. Int J Automot Technol 2018;19(1):27–35. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12239-018-0003-6.
[224] Bhiogade Girish, Suryawanshi JG. Investigations on premixed charge compression
ignition engine with external mixture formation and exhaust gas recirculation
technique. J Mech Sci Technol 2016;30(11):5269–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12206-016-1045-1.
[225] Kiplimo Robert, Tomita Eiji, Kawahara Nobuyuki, Yokobe Sumito. Combustion
and emission characteristics of a premixed charge compression ignition engine. J
Sustain Res Eng 2014;1(1):8–16.
[226] Andre Boehman L, Sun Chenxii, Kang Dongil, StnislavBohac V. Impact of fuel and
injection timing on partially premixed charge compression ignition combustion.
Energy Fuel 2016;30:4331–45. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.
6b00257.
[227] Natarajan S, Abhinav Shankar S, Meenakshi Sundareswaran AU. Early injected
PCCI engine fuelled with bio-ethanol and diesel blends – an experimental in-
vestigation. Energy Procedia 2017;105:358–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2017.03.326.
[228] Saravanan S, Pitchandi K, Suresh G. An experimental study on premixed charge
compression ignition direct ignition engine fueled with ethanol and gasohol.
Alexandria Eng J 2015;54:897–904https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.07.010.
[229] Saray RK, Zehni A, Poorghasemi K. Numerical comparison of PCCI combustion
and emission of diesel and biodiesel fuels at low load conditions using 3D CFD
models coupled with chemical kinetics. Appl Therm Eng
2017;110:1483–99https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.09.056.
[230] Valentin S, J Moncada JD, Remi G, Martin M, Spencer H, Marcel I, Andrew Z,
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
Molina G. LTC (low temperature combustion) analysis of PCCI (premixed charge
compression ignition) with n-butanol and cotton seed biodiesel versus combustion
and emissions characteristics of their binary mixtures. Renew Energy
2018;123:323–33https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.061.
[231] Anand K, Murugesa Pandian M. Comparison of different low temperature com-
bustion strategies in a light duty air cooled diesel engine. Appl Therm Eng
2018;142:380–90https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.07.047.
[232] Gao T. Mixing and reactivity control with butanol and ethanol in compression
ignition engines Electronic Thesis and Dissertations 2017 p. 7259https://scholar.
uwindsor.ca/etd/7259.
[233] Zheng M, Han X, Wang J. Fuel suitability for low temperature combustion in
compression ignition engines. Fuel 2013;109:336–49https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2013.01.049.
[234] Yanzhao A, Mohammed J, RamanV Francisco E, Hong IG, Johansson B.
Homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) and partially premixed com-
bustion (PPC) in compression ignition engine with low octane gasoline. Energy
2018;158:181–91https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.057.
[235] Panakarajupally RP. A computational investigation of injection strategies and
sensitivity analysis of an ethanol fuelled PPCI engine Thesis Master of science,
University of Akron; 2016
[236] Javier MS, Benajes J, Garcia A, Sari RL. Fuel consumption and engine out emis-
sions estimators of a light duty engine running in dual mode RCCI/CDC with
different fuels and driving cycles. Energy 2018;157:19–30https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.energy.2018.05.144.
[237] Hosseini V, Mostafa M, ReyhanianM, Said M, Aziz AA. Performance and emissions
of a reactivity controlled light duty diesel engine fueled with n-butanol-diesel and
gasoline. Appl Therm Eng 2018;134:214–28https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2018.02.003.
[238] Han X, ZhengM, Jimi T. Suitability study of n-butanol for enabling PCCI and HCCI
and RCCI combustion on a high compression ratio diesel engine. SAE Int J Eng
2015. https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-1816.
[239] Jia M, Xu G, Li Y, Xie M, Su W. Multi-objective optimization of the combustion of a
heavy duty diesel engine with low temperature combustion under a wide load
range: (I) computational method and optimization results. Energy
2017;126:707–19https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.126.
[240] Xu Y, Kang H, GongJ, ZhangS, LiX. A study on the combustion strategy of gaso-
line/diesel dual fuel engine. Fuel 2018;225:426–35https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.
2018.03.166.
[241] Han X, Jimi T, Reader GT, Zheng M. Ethanol diesel dual fuel clean combustion
with FPGA enabled control. Int J Powertrains 2014;3(2):242–57.
[242] Jia M, Li Y, Cheng Y, Kokjohn SL, Reitz RD. Thermodynamic energy and exergy
analysis of three different engine combustion regimes. Appl Energy
2015;180:849–58https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.038.
[243] Jia M, Li Y, Cheng Y, Xie M, Reitz RD. Towards a comprehensive understanding of
the influence of fuel properties on the combustion characteristics of a RCCI (re-
activity controlled compression ignition) engine. Energy 2016;99:69–82https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.01.056.
[244] Li J, Ling X, Liu D, Yang W, Zhou D. Numerical study on double injection tech-
niques in a gasoline and biodiesel fueled RCCI (reactivity controlled compression
ignition) engine. Appl Energy 2018;211:382–92https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2017.11.062.
[245] Jia M, Li Y, Chang Y, Xu Zhen, Xu G, Liu Hong, Wang T. Principle of determining
the optimal operating parameters based on fuel properties and initial conditions
for RCCI engines. Fuel 2018;216:284–95https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.12.
010.
[246] Yanfei L, Song H, Liu C, Wang Z, Chen L, He Xin, Wang J. An exploration of
utilizing low pressure diesel injection for natural gas dual fuel low temperature
combustion. Energy 2018;153:248–55https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.04.
041.
[247] Jacobs J, Tompkins BT. Low temperature combustion with biodiesel: its enabling
features in improving efficiency and emissions. Energy Fuel
2013;27:2794–803https://doi.org/10.1021/ef302076y.
[248] Yao M, Geng Chao, Liu Haifeng, Ran Xingwang. The impact of low temperature
reforming (LTR) products of fuel rich n-heptane on compression ignition engine
combustion. Fuel 2018;229:11–21https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.04.063.
[249] Yang W, Zhou Dezhi, Jing Li, Tay Kun Lin, Kraft Markus. Combustion modeling in
RCCI engines with a hybrid characteristics time combustion and closed reactor
model. Appl Energy 2017;227:665–71https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.
08.137.
[250] Xie H, Kang Song, Yu He, Lu Jun. Multi-cylinder spark assisted homogeneous
charge compression ignition engine balancing control. Int J Powertrains
2013;2(4):314–34.
[251] Jarfarmadar S, Nader N. Exergy analysis of natural gas/DME combustion in
homogeneous charge compression ignition engines (HCCI) using zero dimensional
model with detailed chemical kinetics mechanism. Int J Exergy
2014;15(3):363–81https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEX.2014.065713.
[252] Contino Francesco, Foucher Fabrice, Dagaut Philippe, Lucchini Tommaso, Errico
GD, Rousselle CM. Experimental and numerical analysis of nitric oxide effect on
the ignition of isooctane in a single cylinder HCCI engine. Combust Flame
2013;160(8):1476–83https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2013.02.028.
[253] Jean-Baptiste M, Fabrice F, Da Guillaume, Philippe D. Investigation of isooctane
combustion in a homogeneous charge compression ignition engine seeded by
ozone, nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide. Proc Combust Inst
2015;35:3125–32https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2014.05.060.
[254] Shingne PS, Middleton RJ, Assanis DN, Borgnakke C, Martz JB. A thermodynamic
model for homogeneous charge compression ignition combustion with
51
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
recompression valve events and direct injection: part 1- Adiabatic core ignition
model. Int J Engine Res 2016;18(7):657–76https://doi.org/10.1177/%
2F1468087416664635.
[255] Faingold G, Tartakovsky L, Frankel SH. Numerical study of a direct injection in-
ternal combustion engine burning a blend of hydrogen and dimethyl ether. Drones
2018;2(23):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones2030023.
[256] Jafarinasabashkezari M, Ghomashi H. Determining appropriate operating condi-
tions of a homogeneous charge compression ignition engine. Indian J Sci Technol
2017;10(9):1–5. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i9/110155.
[257] Hanafi H, Hasan MM, Rahman MM, Noor MM, Kadirgama K, Ramasamy D.
Numerical modeling on homogeneous charge compression ignition combustion
engine fueled by diesel-ethanol blends. MATEC Web of Conferences
2016;76:00037https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20167400037.
[258] Aziz Hariruddin A, Wandel AP, Yusaf T. Effects of different heat transfer models on
a diesel homogeneous charge compression ignition engine. Int J Automot Mech
Eng 2013;8:1292–304https://doi.org/10.15282/ijame.8.2013.18.1292-1304.
[259] Bendu H, Murugan Sivalingam. Experimental investigation on the effect of charge
temperature on ethanol fueled HCCI combustion engine. J Mech Sci Technol
2016;30(10):4791–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-016-0951-6.
[260] Vinayagam N, Nagarajan G. Experimental study of performance and emission
characteristics of DEE assisted minimally processed ethanol fuelled HCCI engine.
Int J Automot Eng 2014;15(4):517–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12239-014-
0054-2.
[261] Rajesh Kumar B, Saravanan S. Partially premixed low temperature combustion
using dimethyl ether carbonate (DME) in a DI diesel engine for favorable smoke/
NOx emissions. Fuel 2016;180:396–406https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.04.
060.
[262] Kim J, Kim Keunsoo, Oh Seungmook, Lee Sunyoup. An assessment of the biodiesel
low temperature combustion engine under transient cycles using single cylinder
engine experiment and cycle simulation. Energy 2016;95:471–82https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.023.
[263] Bahri Bahram, Shahbakthi Mahdi, Kannan Kaushik, Aziz Azhar Abdul.
Identification of ringing operation for low temperature combustion engines. Appl
Energy 2016;171:142–52https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.033.
[264] Liu Bolan, Dong Tianpu, Zhang Fujun, Wang Yingmin, Wang Baolin, Pan Liu.
Control oriented modeling and analysis of gas exchange and combustion processes
for LTC diesel engine. Appl Therm Eng 2017;110:1305–14https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.09.001.
[265] Ramesh N, Mallikarjuna JM. Low temperature combustion strategy in an off
highway diesel engine- experimental and CFD study. Appl Therm Eng
2016;124:844–54https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.06.078.
[266] Lei S, Xiao Wei, Li Mengyu, Lin Lou, Deng K. Research on the effects of injection
strategy on LTC combustion based on two-stage fuel injection. Energy
2016;212:21–31https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.128.
[267] Amorim RJ, Novella R, Garcia A, Molina S. Study on LTC for light duty engines
-part 2 - spray enhancements. Fuel 2017;193:206–19https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2016.12.050.
[268] Jean BM. Experimental study of the HCCI combustion through the use of minor
oxidizing chemical species Doctorate Thesis UniversiteD’orleans; 2016.
[269] Wang Y, Zhen X. Numerical analysis of knock during HCCI in a high compression
ratio methanol engine based on LES with detailed chemical kinetics. Energy
Convers Manag 2015;96:188–96https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.02.
053.
[270] Ganesh D, Nagarajan G. Homogeneous charge compression ignition engine (HCCI)
combustion of diesel fuel with external mixture formation. Energy
2010;35:148–57https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.09.005.
[271] Banapurmath NR, Khandal SV, Gaitonde. Performance studies on homogeneous
charge compression ignition (HCCI) engine powered with alternative fuels. Renew
Energy 2018;132:683–93https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.035.
[272] Lu X, Zhou X, Z, Ji L, Yang Z, Han D, Huang C, Huang Z. Experimental study on the
dual-fuel sequential combustion and emission. Energy 2015;51:358–73https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.026.
[273] Agarwal AK, Maurya RK. Experimental study of combustion and emission char-
acteristics of ethanol fuelled port injected homogeneous charge compression ig-
nition (HCCI) combustion engine. Appl Energy 2011;88:1169–80https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.09.015.
[274] Ying W, Wei L, Longbao Z. Advanced combustion operation in a single-cylinder
engine. Int J Thermal Sci 2010;49:1303–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.
2010.02.001.
[275] Spessa E, Catania AE, Finesso R. Predictive zero-dimensional combustion model
for DI diesel engine feed-forward control. Energy Convers Manag
2011;52:3159–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2011.05.003.
[276] Kiplimo R, Tomita E, Kawahara N, Yokobe S. Effects of spray impingement, in-
jection parameters and EGR on the combustion and emission characteristics of a
PCCI diesel engine. Appl Therm Eng 2012;37:165–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2011.11.011.
[277] Saray RK, Zehni A. Comparison of late PCCI combustion, performance and emis-
sions of diesel engine for B20 and B100 fuels by kiva-chemkin coupling. Renew
Energy 2018;122:118–30https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.046.
[278] Kook S, Woo C, Hawkes ER. Effect of intake air temperature and common rail
pressure on ethanol combustion in a single cylinder light duty diesel engine. Fuel
2016;180:9–19https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.04.005.
[279] Lawler B, Splitter D, Szybist Kaul B. Thermally stratified compression ignition: a
new advanced low temperature combustion mode with load flexibility. Appl
Energy 2017;189:122–32https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.034.
[280] LU X, Shen Y, Zhang Y, Zhou X, Ji L, Yang Z, Huang Z. Controlled three stage heat
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
release of stratified charge compression ignition (SCCI) combustion with a two-
stage primary reference fuel supply. Fuel 2011;90:2026–38https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.fuel.2011.01.026.
[281] Zheng M, Divekar PS, Chen X, Tjong J. Energy efficiency impact of EGR on or-
ganizing clean combustion in diesel engines. Energy Convers Manag
2016;112:369–81https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.02.053.
[282] Han X, Yang Z, Wang M, Tjong J, Zheng M. Clean combustion of n-butanol as a
next generation biofuel for diesel engines. Appl Energy 2016;198:347–59https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.059.
[283] Pedrozo VB, May I, Guan W, Zhao H. High efficiency ethanol diesel dual fuel
combustion: a comparison against conventional diesel combustion from low to full
engine load. Fuel 2018;230:440–51https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.05.034.
[284] Rahimi Bolddaji M, Sofianopoulos A, Mamalis S, Lawler B. A CFD investigation of
the effects of fuel split fraction on advanced low temperature combustion: com-
paring a primary reference fuel blend and ethanol. Front Mech Eng
2018;4(6):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2018.00006.
[285] Sarangi AS, Garner CP, Gordon PTC, Dary MH, Wahab E, Peckham M. Load
transient between conventional diesel operation and low temperature combustion.
J Automob Eng 2015;229(7):850–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0954407014548737.
[286] Choi S, Min K. Analysis of the combustion and emissions of a diesel engine in early
injection, partially premixed charge compression ignition regimes. J Automob Eng
2013;227(7):939–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954407012468637.
[287] Divekar PS, Asad U, Tjong J, Chen X, Zheng M. An engine cycle analysis of diesel
ignited ethanol low temperature combustion. J Automob Eng
2015;230(8):1057–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954407015598244.
[288] He BQ, Yuan J, Liu MB, Zhao H. Low temperature combustion characteristics of a
n-butanol/isooctane HCCI engine. Energy Fuels 2015;28:4183–92. https://doi.
org/10.1021/ef500508h.
[289] Mamalis S, Babajimopoulos A, Assanis D, Borgnakke C. A modeling framework for
second law analysis of low temperature combustion engines. Int J Engine Res
2014;15(6):641–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468087413512312.
[290] Jacobs TJ, Narayanan AM. Observed differences in low temperature heat release
and their possible effect on efficiency between petroleum diesel and soybean
biodiesel operating in low temperature combustion mode. Energy Fuels
2015;29:4510–21. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00558.
[291] Reijnders J, Boot M, Johansson B, Goey P. GTLine – gasoline as a potential CN
suppressant for GTL. Fuel 2018;222:278–86https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.
02.111.
[292] Singh AP, Agarwal AK. Experimental evaluation of sensitivity of low temperature
combustion to intake charge temperature and fuel properties. Int J Engine Res
2017;19(7):732–57https://doi.org/10.1177/1468087417730215.
[293] Sogbesan O, Davy MH, Garner CP. Insights into the hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide emissions in moderately and highly dilute low temperature combustion.
J Automob Eng 2014;228(11):1285–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0954407014521176.
[294] Sogbesan O, Garner CP, Davy MH. Effects of intake port throttling on combustion
behavior in diesel low temperature combustion. Int J Engine Res
2017;19(8):827–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468087417732881.
[295] Lim O, Thongchai S. Investigation of the combustion characteristics of gasoline
compression ignition engine fueled with gasoline-biodiesel blends. J Mech Sci
Technol 2018;32(3):959–67https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-018-0146-9.
[296] Novella R, Broatch, Tiscar JG, Soriano JG. On the shift of acoustic characteristics
of compression ignited engines when operating with gasoline partially premixed
combustion. Appl Therm Eng 2019;146:223–31https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2018.09.089.
[297] Yu X, Yu S, Zheng M. Hydrocarbon impact on NO and NO2 conversion in a
compression ignition engine under low temperature combustion. Int J Engine Res
2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468087417745441.
[298] Zheng Q, Chen H, Zheng Z. Investigation of the combustion characteristics and the
emissions characteristics with diesel low temperature combustion. J Automob Eng
2013;227(12):1625–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954407013501488.
[299] Jia M, Xu G, Li Y, Xie M, Su W. Multi-objective optimization of the combustion of a
heavy duty diesel engine with low temperature combustion (LTC) under a wide
load range: (II) detailed parametric, energy and exergy analysis. Energy
2017;139:247–61https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.001.
[300] Park H, Shim E, Bae C. Improvement of combustion and emissions with exhaust
gas recirculation in a natural gas diesel dual fuel premixed charge compression
ignition engine at low load operations. Fuel 2019;235:763–74https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.fuel.2018.08.045.
[301] Huang H, Li Z, Teng W, Haung R, Liu Q, Wang Y. Effects of EGR rates on com-
bustion and emission characteristics in a diesel engine with n-butanol/PODE/
diesel blends. Appl Therm Eng 2019;146:212–22https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2018.09.126.
[302] Aydin H, Isik MZ. Investigation on the effects of gasoline reactivity controlled
compression ignition application in a diesel generator in high loads using saf-
flower biodiesel blends. Renew Energy 2019;133:177–89https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.renene.2018.10.025.
[303] Mei D, Yue S, Zhao X, Hielscher K, Baar R. Effects of center of heat release on
combustion and emissions in a PCCI diesel engine fueled by DMC-diesel blend.
Appl Therm Eng 2017;114:969–76https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.
2016.12.064.
[304] Vahid E, Salahi MM, Gharehghani A, Mirsalim. Extending the lean operating range
of a premixed charged compression ignition natural gas engine using a pre-
chamber. Energy 2017;119:1181–94https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.
071.
52
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
[305] Yang F, Yao C, Wang J, Ouyang M. Load expansion of a dieseline compression
ignition engine with multi-mode combustion. Fuel 2016;171:5–17https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2015.12.046.
[306] Gokul V, Reitz RD. Application of a semi-detailed soot modeling approach for
conventional and low temperature diesel combustion-part 1: model performance.
Fuel 2015;139:757–70https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.08.026.
[307] Shi L, Xiao W, Li M, Lou L, Deng K. Research on the effects of injection strategy on
LTC combustion based on two stage fuel injection. Energy 2017;121:21–31https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.128.
[308] Soloiu V, Duggan M, Harp S, Vlcek B, Williams D. PFI (port fuel injection) of n-
butanol and direct injection of biodiesel to attain LTC (low temperature com-
bustion) for low emissions idling in a compression engine. Energy
2013;52:143–54https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.023.
[309] Solouk A, Tripp J, Herfeh MS, Shahbakhti M. Fuel consumption assessment of a
multi-mode low temperature combustion engine as range extender for an electric
vehicle. Energy Convers Manag 2017;148:1478–96https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2017.06.090.
[310] Pidol L, Leconinte B, Starck L, Jeuland N. Ethanol-biodiesel-diesel fuel blends:
performances and emissions in conventional diesel and advanced low temperature
combustions. Fuel 2012;93:329–38https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.09.008.
[311] Anand K, Reitz RD. Exploring the benefits of multiple injections in low tempera-
ture combustion using a diesel surrogate model. Fuel 2015;165:341–50https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.10.087.
[312] Hosseini V, Mohebbi M, Reyhanian M, Said MFM, Aziz AA. The effect of diethyl
ether addition on performance and emission of a reactivity controlled compression
ignition engine fueled with ethanol and diesel. Energy Convers Manag
2018;174:779–92https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.08.091.
[313] Huh KY, Lee Y. Analysis of different modes of low temperature combustion by
ultra-high EGR and modulated kinetics in a heavy duty diesel engine. Appl Therm
Eng 2014;70:776–87https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.05.090.
[314] Han M. The effects of synthetically designed diesel fuel properties-cetane number,
aromatic content, distillation temperature, on low temperature diesel combustion.
Fuel 2013;109:512–9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.03.039.
[315] Zhou D, Yang W, Li J, Tay KL, Chou SK, Kraft. Efficient combustion modelling in
RCCI engine with detailed chemistry. Energy Procedia 2017;105:1582–7. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.504.
[316] Soloiu V, Gaubert R, Moncada J, Wiley J, Williams J, Harp S, Ilie M, Molina G,
Mothershed D. Reactivity controlled compression ignition and low temperature
combustion of Fischer-Tropsch fuel blended with n-butanol. Renew Energy
2018https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.047.
[317] Wang Z, Liu H, Wang J, He X. Effects of gasoline research octane number on
premixed low temperature combustion of wide distillation fuel by gasoline/diesel
blend. Fuel 2014;134:381–8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.06.019.
[318] Fathi M, Jahanian O, Ganji DD, Wang S, Somers B. Stand-alone single and multi-
zone modeling of direct injection homogeneous charge compression ignition (DI-
HCCI) combustion engines. Appl Therm Eng 2017;125:1181–90https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.07.123.
[319] Jia M, Li Y, Cheng Y, Fan W, Xie M, Wang T. Evaluation of the necessity of exhaust
gas recirculation employment for a methanol/diesel reactivity controlled com-
pression ignition engine operated at medium loads. Energy Convers Manag
2015;101:40–51https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.05.041.
[320] Firmansyah, Aziz ARA, Heikal MR, Abidin EZZ, Panchatcharam N. Reactivity
controlled compression ignition (RCCI) of gasoline CNG mixtures. Improvement
trends for internal combustion engines. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.
72880; 2018.
[321] Ouyang M, Yang F, Wang J, Gao G. In-cycle diesel low temperature combustion
control based on SOC detection. Appl Energy 2014;136:77–88https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.014.
[322] Jia M, Li Y, Cheng Y, Liu Y, Xie M, Wang T, Zhou L. Parametric study and opti-
mization of a RCCI (reactivity controlled compression ignition) engine fueled with
methanol and diesel. Energy 2014;65:319–32https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2013.11.059.
[323] Bae C, Kim D. Application of double injection strategy on gasoline compression
ignition engine under low load condition. Fuel 2017;203:792–801https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2017.04.107.
[324] Garcia A, Benajes J, Serrano JM, Sari RL. Experimental investigation on the effi-
ciency of a diesel oxidation catalyst in a medium duty multi-cylinder RCCI engine.
Energy Convers Manag 2018;176:1–10https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.
09.016.
[325] Saray RK, Poorghasemi K, Ansari E, Irdmousa BK, Shahbakhti M, Naber JD. Effect
of diesel injection strategies on natural gas/diesel RCCI combustion characteristics
in a light duty diesel engine. Appl Energy 2017;199:430–46https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.011.
[326] Ansari E, Shahbakhti M, Naber. Optimization of performance and operational cost
for a dual mode diesel natural gas RCCI and diesel combustion engine. Appl
Energy 2018;231:549–61https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.040.
[327] Garcia A, Piqueras P, Serrano JM, Sari RL. Sizing a conventional diesel oxidation
catalyst to be used for RCCI combustion under real driving conditions. Appl Therm
Eng 2018;140:62–72https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.05.043.
[328] Ciatti SA, Cung KD, Tanov S, Andersson O. Low temperature combustion of high
octane fuels in a gasoline compression ignition engine. Front Mech Eng 2017;3.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2017.00022. Article 22.
[329] May IA. An experimental investigation of lean-burn dual fuel combustion in a
heavy duty diesel engine Thesis London: Brunel University; 2018
[330] May I, Cairns A, Zhao H, Pedrozo V. Reduction of methane slip using premixed
micro pilot combustion in a heavy duty natural gas diesel engine Technical Paper
M. Krishnamoorthi, et al.
SAE; 2015. Paper: SAE 2015-01-1798.
[331] May I, Pedrozo V, Zhao H, Cairns A. Characterization and potential of premixed
dual fuel combustion in a heavy duty natural gas/diesel engine. Technical Paper
SAE; 2016. https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-0790.
[332] Yanzhao A, Tang Q, Vallinayagam R, Shi H, Sim J, Chang J, Magnotti G,
Johansson B. Combustion stability study of partially premixed combustion by
high-pressure multiple injections with low-octane fuel. Appl Energy
2019;248:626–39https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.048.
[333] Yang B, Zeng K. Effects of natural gas injection timing and split pilot fuel injection
strategy on the combustion performance and emissions in a dual-fuel engine
fuelled with diesel and natural gas. Energy Convers Manag
2018;168:162–9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.04.091.
[334] Bejajes J, Pastor JV, Garcia A, Serrano JM. An experimental investigation on the
influence of piston bowl geometry on RCCI performance and emissions in a heavy-
duty engine. Energy Convers Manag 2015;103:1019–30https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2015.07.047.
[335] Wissink M, Reitz RD. Technical Paper Direct dual fuel stratification, a path to
combine the benefits of RCCI and PPC vol. 8. SAE; 2015. p. 878–89. https://doi.
org/10.4271/2015-01-0856. 2.
[336] Zhang Y, Ghandhi J, Rothamer D. Comparison of particulate size distributions
from advanced and conventional combustion-part 1: CDC, HCCI and RCCI 7. SAE
Techn Pap; 2014. p. 820–34. https://doi.org/10.4271/2014-01-1296. 2.
[337] Wang H, Dan D, Yao M, Reitz RD. Numerical study of RCCI and HCCI combustion
processes using gasoline, diesel, iso-butanol and DTBP cetane improver 8. SAE
Techn Pap; 2015. p. 830–45. https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-0850. 2.
[338] Walker NR, Chuahy FDF, Reitz RD. Comparison of diesel pilot ignition (DPI) and
Reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) in a heavy-duty engine. ASME
2015 internal combustion engine division fall technical conference 2015; Houston,
TX, USA.
[339] Ebrahimi M, Jazayeri SA. Effect of hydrogen addition on RCCI combustion of a
heavy duty diesel engine fuelled with landfill gas and diesel oil. Int J of Hydrogen
Energy 2019;44(4):7607–15https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.02.010.
[340] Ganesh D, Murugan R, Nagarajan G. A comparative study on methanol/diesel and
methanol/PODE dual fuel RCCI combustion in an automotive diesel engine.
Renew Energy 2020;145:542–56https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.044.
[341] Liu X, Kokjohn S, Wang H, Li H, Yao M. A numerical investigation of the com-
bustion kinetics of reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) combustion
in an optical engine. Fuel 2019;241:753–66https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.
12.068.
[342] Senthilkumar M, Arul K, Sasikumar N. Impact of oxygen enrichment on the en-
gines performance, emissions and combustion behaviour of a biodiesel based re-
activity controlled compression ignition engine. J Energy Inst
2019;92:51–61https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2017.12.001.
[343] Ghazal OH. Combustion analysis of hydrogen-diesel dual fuel engine with water
53
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109404
injection technique. Case Stud Thermal Eng 2019;13:100380https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.csite.2018.100380.
[344] Guangfu X, Jia M, Yaopeng L, Chang Y, Hong L, Wang T. Evaluation of variable
compression ratio (VCR) and variable valve timing (VVT) strategies in a heavy-
duty diesel engine with reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) com-
bustion under a wide load range. Fuel 2019;253:114–28https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuel.2019.05.020.
[345] Gautam E, Satyanarayanamurthy YVV, Nayar Jayashri, Ramesh Merigala, Srinivas
Paleti. Combustion analysis of modified light duty diesel engine under high
pressure split injections with cooled EGR. Eng Sci Technol Int J 2019https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.01.013.
[346] Ansari E, Tyler M, Shanbakhti M, Jeffrey N. Experimental investigation into effects
of high reactive fuel on combustion and emission characteristics of the diesel-
natural gas reactivity controlled compression ignition engine. Appl Energy
2019;239:948–56https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.256.
[347] Seongin J, Suhan P, Hyung JK, Jong-Tae L. Combustion improvement and emis-
sion reduction through control of ethanol ratio and intake air temperature in re-
activity controlled compression ignition combustion engine. Appl Energy
2019;250:1418–31https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.05.012.
[348] Jing L, Xiang L, Dezhi Z, Yang W. Effects of effective compression ratio by mod-
ifying IVC timing and stroke length in a reactivity-controlled compression ignition
engine. Energy Procedia 2019;158:1491–6https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.
2019.01.355.
[349] Park Sangjun, Soonho S. Model-based multi-objective pareto optimization of the
BSFC and NOx emission of a dual-fuel engine using a variable valve strategy. J Nat
Gas Sci Eng 2017;39:161–72https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.01.032.
[350] Haiqin Z, Xiangong L, Weihua Z, Fushui L. Effects of separated swirl combustion
chamber geometries on the combustion and emission characteristics of DI diesel
engine. Fuel 2019;253:488–500https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.05.032.
[351] Harish V, Dhanaraju V, Lingesan S. Combined effect of influence of nano additives,
combustion chamber geometry and injection timing and injection timing in a DI
diesel engine fuelled with ternary blends. Energy 2019;174:386–406https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.163.
[352] Shahanwaz K, Rajsekhar P, Probir KB. The impact of combustion chamber con-
figuration on combustion and emissions of a single cylinder diesel engine fuelled
with soybean methyl ester blends with diesel. Renew Energy
2019;143:335–51https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.162.
[353] Bridjesh P, Pitchaipillai P, Narayanan KG. Combined effect of composite additive
and combustion chamber modification to adapt waste plastic oil as fuel on a diesel
engine. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2019;97:297–304https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.
2019.02.022.
[354] Prabhakara RG, Rudha NS, Raju VRK, Rao SS. Design of piston bowl geometry for
better combustion in direct-injection compression ignition engine. Indian Acad Sci
2018;43:1–9https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-018-0907-x.