Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849–857

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

A comparison of water–diesel emulsion and timed injection of water

into the intake manifold of a diesel engine for simultaneous control
of NO and smoke emissions
K.A. Subramanian *
Engines and Unconventional Fuels Laboratory, Centre for Energy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110 016, India

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

Article history: Experiments were conducted to compare the effects of water–diesel emulsion and water injection into
Received 23 April 2009 the intake manifold on performance, combustion and emission characteristics of a DI diesel engine under
Received in revised form 26 December 2009 similar operating conditions. The water to diesel ratio for the emulsion was 0.4:1 by mass. The same
Accepted 8 August 2010
water–diesel ratio was maintained for water injection method in order to assess both potential benefits.
All tests were done at the constant speed of 1500 rpm at different outputs. The static injection timing of
23° BTDC was kept as constant for all experimental tests.
Keywords:
In the first phase, experiments were carried out to asses the performance, combustion and emission
Water–diesel emulsion
Manifold timed water injection
characteristics of the engine using the water–diesel emulsion. The emulsion was prepared using the sur-
Diesel engine performance factant of HLB:7. The emulsion was injected using the conventional injection system during the compres-
Combustion and emission characteristics sion stroke. The second phase of work was that water was injected into the intake manifold of the engine
NO and smoke emissions using an auxiliary injector during the suction stroke. An electronic control unit (ECU) was developed to
control the injector operation such as start of injection and water injection duration with respect to the
desired crank angle.
The experimental result indicates the both methods (emulsion and injection) could reduce NO emission
drastically in diesel engines. At full load, NO emission decreased drastically from 1034 ppm with base
diesel to 645 ppm with emulsion and 643 ppm with injection. But, NO emission reduction is lesser with
injection than emulsion at part loads. Smoke emission is lower with the emulsion (2.7 BSU) than with
water injection (3.2 BSU) as compared to base diesel (3.6 BSU). However, CO and HC levels were higher
with emulsion than water injection. As regards NO and smoke reduction, the emulsion was superior to
injection at all loads. Peak pressure, ignition delay and maximum rate of pressure rise were lesser with
water injection as compared to the emulsion. It is well demonstrated through this comparative study that
the emulsion method has higher potential of simultaneous reduction of NO and smoke emissions at all
loads than injection method.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The main causes of formation of particulate emission from die-

Diesel engines play a major role in power generation, agricul-
ture, mass transportation etc. India, one of the fast developing
countries, is known as diesel driven economy as the consumption
of diesel to gasoline is about 5:1. This is mainly due to diesel en-
gine operation at higher compression ratio and leaner air fuel ratio
than SI engine resulting in higher thermal efficiency. Even though
the levels of HC and CO are very lower in the diesel engines than
gasoline engine, however, it emits high levels of NOx and smoke
emission. The stringent emission norms pose to a big challenge
to the researchers for controlling these emissions.
* Tel.: +91 011 26591247; fax: +91 011 26581121.
E-mail address: subra@ces.iitd.ac.in
sel engines are heterogeneous air–fuel mixture, poor mixing of fuel
with air, high diffusion combustion phase, fuel containing sulfur
content, high fuel density, etc. Particulate emission could be re-
duced by improving mixing rate of fuel with air, enhancing pre-
mixed combustion phase by increasing ignition delay, etc.
However, it would lead to high in-cylinder temperature resulting
in high NOx formation as it is mainly a function of temperature.
This conflict nature leads to difficulty in simultaneous control of
NOx and particulate emissions from diesel engines.
Several methods have been tried and reported in literatures to
control the emissions. Most in-cylinder control techniques do not
simultaneously reduce NOx and smoke emissions. For example,
EGR technique can reduce NOx significantly but it would increase
particulate emissions where as oxygen enrichment technique

0196-8904/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2010.08.010
850 K.A. Subramanian / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849–857
Nomenclature
BTDC before top dead centre
bsfc brake specific fuel consumption
BMEP Brake mean effective pressure
BSU Bosch smoke unit
BP brake power
CO carbon monoxide
C1 and C2 constants (C1 = 130 and C2 = 1.4)
DI direct injection
dQ/dt heat release rate (W)
ECU electronic control unit
EGR exhaust gas recirculation
emul emulsion
HLB hydrophile lipophile balance
HC hydrocarbon
H heat transfer coefficient
inject injection
NO nitric oxide
could reduce smoke emission drastically but NOx emission would
shoot up. The combination of many techniques including after
treatment may be an option to reduce these emissions but the
additional costs including initial investment, maintenance, addi-
tional energy consumption by the devices, may be an expensive
solution with system complexity. So, a simple technique needs to
be developed to reduce NOx and Smoke emission simultaneously
without fuel penalty.
1.1. Water–diesel emulsion
Modifying the fuel offers a simple way to control these emis-
sions as many researchers reported in literatures that the useful-
ness of water–diesel emulsion on performance improvement and
emission reduction of diesel engines. Water added diesel can re-
duce NOx and smoke simultaneously. NO emission decreased dras-
tically due to thermal, dilution and chemical effects (enhancement
of OH radicals) of water [1]. Smoke reduction may be due to
improvement in mixing rate of fuel with air by micro-explosion
phenomenon and increase in premixed combustion phase due to
long ignition delay [2]. The effect of water–diesel ratio up to 0.8
by mass was studied and reported a reduction in NOx about 60%
and smoke about 50–70% at a given load (BMEP of 5.31 kg/cm2)
[2]. However, at lower loads, they reported a slight increase in BSFC
compared to operation on plain diesel as a result of overcooling
and over mixing of the charge. Frederic Barnaud et al. reported oxi-
des of nitrogen, smoke and particulate emission at 0.13:1 water–
diesel ratio could reduce up to 30%, 80% and 50% respectively [3].
In addition, a further reduction in particulate emission of up to
90% was obtained with the use of an oxidation catalyst. The author
studied extensively on water–diesel emulsions with ratio of 0.3:1,
0.4:1, 0.5:1 and 0.6:1, and concluded that NOx and smoke reduc-
tion with 0.4:1 and 0.5:1 water to diesel ratio at full load was about
33.8% and 42%, 25% and 48% respectively [4]. However, there is an
increase in CO and HC levels and drop in brake thermal efficiency
at lower loads. Sheng et al. conducted experiments to study the
combustion mechanism of water in diesel fuel emulsion spray in
a combustion bomb and simulated road-load conditions. They re-
ported smoke decreased up to 30% and NOx level also decreased,
and the water fraction of 6–15% had no significant effect on engine
smoke [5]. Anna lif et al. reported that there is a reduction in NOx
and particulate matter but increase in CO and HC emissions level
with the increasing the water content in the fuel [6]. In addition,
they reviewed also effects of use of water–vegetable oil and
NOx oxides of nitrogen
ppm part per millions
PAH poly aromatic hydrocarbon
PC personal computer
P cylinder pressure (N/m2)
Qw heat transfer to the wall (J)
RPM revolution per minute
SI spark ignition
SOx oxides of sulphur
t time (s)
T average gas temperature (K)
TDC top dead centre
U internal energy (J)
V cylinder volume (m3)
Vp mean piston speed (m/s)
W/D water to diesel ratio
W/O water-in-oil
water–biodiesel emulsion in diesel engines. Nadeem et al. reported
that water emulsification has a potential of significantly reduce the
formation of NOx, CO, SOx, particulate matter, soot and hydrocar-
bons [7]. They extensively studied the effect of temperature, stir-
ring speed and mixing time on emulsion formulation and
reported gemini surfactant (trade mark of the surfactant formu-
lated by them) has much finer and better distributed water drop-
lets as compared to those stabilized by conventional surfactant.
This information is important as formulation of water–diesel
emulsion needs suitable surfactant. Kadota et al. reviewed recent
advances in the combustion of water–fuel emulsion, phenomeno-
logical burning process, ignition process, the flame phenomena
including soot concentration profile, etc. [8]. They concluded that
water emulsion has high potential to increase thermal efficiency
and suppress the emissions such as soot, PAH, carbonaceous resi-
due and they also stressed the needs of more experimental tests
to identify the dominant mechanism and its full potential. Cherng
et al. conducted experiments and compared with w/o two phase
emulsion with O/W/O three phase emulsion and they reported that
three phase emulsion reduces bsfc, CO and NOx emission as com-
pared to two phase emulsion (W/O) [9]. Water-in-oil emulsion is
more suitable for diesel engines applications. This means water is
enclosed by oil droplet resulting in micro-explosion diesel sur-
rounded water particle. Micro-explosion would occur when low
boiling point of liquid (like water) surrounded by a high boiling
point of liquid such as diesel. As the heat transfer takes place from
diesel to water during compression stroke in diesel engines, the
low boiling point goes to unstable superheated state leading to mi-
cro-explosion resulting in better mixing of fuel with air. The phe-
nomenon is discussed in detailed in latter section. PM and NO
emission decreased drastically and water–diesel emulsion has
advantage of no need of huge change in infrastructure [10]. The
use of water–diesel emulsion in diesel engines not only reduces
NOx and particulate emissions simultaneously, it could also im-
prove fuel economy at higher loads [2,4]. Abu-Zaid M. studied
the effect of water–diesel emulsion with different ratio of 0, 5,
10, 15 and 20 on performance and exhaust temperature of a diesel
engine and concluded the average increase in the brake thermal
efficiency for 20% water–diesel emulsion is approximately 3.5%
[11]. However, emulsified fuels have the problem of increase in
CO, HC and rate of pressure rise.
The water–diesel emulsion along with other techniques such as
EGR and different injection timing. could also give high beneficial
results to overcome some problems. It is reported a 55% reduction
 K.A. Subramanian / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849–857 851

in NOx and 45% smoke reduction at 20% emulsion with 16.7% hot Table 1
EGR [12]. A small quantity of hydrogen peroxide (5%) could im- Specifications of the test engine.

prove the overall performance and emissions of a diesel engine Type Four stroke, air cooled, over head
with water–diesel emulsions [13]. NOx, smoke, CO and HC emis- valve, compression ignition engine
sions decreased drastically with the water–diesel–hydrogen perox- Make Kirloskar, TAF1
Number of cylinders One
ide emulsion as compared to plain water–diesel emulsion [13]. Use Bore 87.5 mm
of 10% diethyl ether along with water–diesel emulsion (0.4:1 by Stroke 110 mm
weight) can significantly reduce HC and CO emission without ad- Displacement volume 661.5 cc
verse effects on NOx and smoke [14]. HC and CO levels drop from Compression ratio 17.5:1
Static injection timing 23° btdc
75 ppm to 40 ppm and 0.175% to 0.1% respectively at full load as
Rated power 6 BHP at 1500 rpm
compared to neat water–diesel emulsion. The performance and
emission characteristic of a diesel engine with water–diesel emul-
sion can be improved by oxygen enriched air induction. CO, HC and
smoke decreases drastically at 0.4 water–diesel ratio with oxygen
Table 2
concentration of 24%. However NOx emission shooted up [15].
Measurement accuracy and uncertainty.
There is different optimum water–diesel emulsion ratios re-
ported in literature. Water–diesel emulsion (15%) was found to Measurements Accuracy

be the best or optimum based on controlling the engine’s emission CO 0.01%

[7]. Forty percent water–diesel emulsion is the optimum based on
the highest fuel economy [16]. The optimum water–diesel emul-
sion ratio was 0.5:1 by mass based on reasonable starting perfor-
mance, emulsion stability and viscosity [17]. The optimum
water–diesel emulsion ratio was chosen as 0.4:1 and 0.5:1 based
on brake thermal efficiency, emission reduction, rate of pressure
rise and engine rough running and startability [4].
Even though water–diesel emulsion has advantages of emission
reduction and performance improvement of diesel engines, how-
ever there was an increase of CO and HC levels and rate of pressure
rise. CO and HC emission increased from 35 ppm, 0.12% with base
diesel to 60 ppm, 0.15% respectively at 0.4:1 water–diesel ratio [4].
In addition, the emulsified fuel increased the ignition delay and
rate of pressure rise [2,4].
1.2. Water injection
Apart from the emulsion method, water can also be introduced
into the engine by way of injection into the intake air stream. The
advantages of injection are versatile of on-line variation of water
quantity, increase of volumetric efficiency due to cooling effect,
uniform or homogeneous water distribution in combustion cham-
ber, etc. An increase of 1% in the specific heat of the gases in the
burned zone results in about 20% reduction in NOx emission and
reported a 50% reduction in NOx emission with water injection
(0.03 kg per kg of dry air) in the intake manifold [18]. The combi-
nation of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR: 17%) and manifold water
injection gave a 40–50% reduction in NOx [19]. However, CO and
HC emissions increased with increase in water content with intake
air [19,20]. Smoke also increased with water induction [20].
It is clearly seen from the literature study that water–diesel
emulsion and water injection has advantages of reduction in NOx
and smoke emissions from diesel engines. However, there is no
information available in literatures on which method (water with
emulsion or injection) has higher potential to reduce these emis-
sions under similar operating conditions. In this direction, a com-
parison between the methods of water injection into the
manifold and water–diesel emulsion has been made for assessing
potential benefits of water addition to diesel engines under similar
operating conditions.
2. Experimental details
2.1. Engine and experiments details
A single cylinder, 4-stroke, air-cooled diesel engine with a dis-
placement volume of 661.5 cc (87.5 mm bore  110 mm stroke)
NOx ±1 ppm
HC ±5 ppm
Smoke ±0.1 BSU
Computed results Uncertainty (%)
Torque ±2.1%
Time for air flow ±0.36%
Mass flow rate of fuel ±0.82%
Brake thermal efficiency ±2.3%
Cylinder peak pressure ±1.4%
HC ±2%
CO ±2%
NO ±0.5%
developing 4.4 kW was used for the study. The engine was run at
constant speed of 1500 rpm. The specification of test engine is gi-
ven in Table 1. The measurement accuracy and uncertainty is given
in Table 2. Commercially available diesel was used as fuel. A swing-
ing field dynamometer was used to load the engine. A detailed lay-
out of experimental set-up is shown in Fig. 1. A turbine type flow
meter was used to measure the airflow rate. Both diesel and emul-
sion flows were measured on the mass basis. An Inductive type
needle lift transducer was fabricated to determine the dynamic
injection timing.
2.2. Description of experimental procedure
Experiments were conducted at different loads including the
rated load (4.4 kW) and over load (4.75 kW) for water–diesel emul-
sion and water injection. The water–diesel emulsion ratio of 0.4:1
was chosen for the study as it was found to be the optimum based
on the author’s earlier research work [4]. The same water content
(water–diesel ratio: 0.4:1 by mass) was maintained for both meth-
ods and the results are compared with base diesel. The detailed
study of optimization of water–diesel emulsion may be referred
in literature [4]. Water–diesel emulsion was prepared using a sur-
factant (HLB = 7) with help of emulsion preparation apparatus
which is explained in Section 2.3 and the emulsion was injected
into in-cylinder during compression stroke using the main injec-
tion system. In case of water injection, plain water was injected
into intake manifold using an auxiliary injector which was con-
trolled by an ECU. A static injection timing of 23° BTDC was kept
as constant for all experimental tests. The performance and emis-
sion characteristics of the engine was measured for both methods
and the results are compared with base diesel. The pressure-crank
angle data was measured using piezo-electric transducer and TDC
encoder and the data was given as input for calculating ignition de-
lay, heat release rate and rate of pressure rise. The dynamic injec-
852 K.A. Subramanian / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849–857

Fig. 1. Experimental set-up.

tion timing was measured using a needle lift sensor and it was
used for finding out ignition delay.

2.3. Measurement of pressure-crank angle data

A piezo electric pressure transducer was flush mounted on the

cylinder head for the measurement of cylinder pressure. An elec-
tro-optical sensor was developed to indicate the position of TDC
as the crank shaft rotated. A 12 bit analogue to digital converter
Emulsifier (Surfactant): HLB = 7
was used to store analogue data in digital form on a PC.
Fig. 2. Emulsion preparation apparatus.
2.4. Preparation of emulsion

A mixture of diesel, water, surfactant were circulated several
times to form an emulsion using an apparatus comprising of a cen-
trifugal pump, glass jar and glass tube with a submergible nozzle
portion as shown in Fig. 2. As oil soluble surfactant (HLB < 10)
are the best for water-in-oil emulsions, the surfactant with HLB
of 7 was used for preparing the emulsion. The surfactant used
was 1% by weight and stability time for the emulsion was about
one and half days. After the emulsion prepared in off-line, then it
was immediately used in the engine.
noid operated injector. The amount of water injected per cycle
was controlled by varying the pulse width of the signal fed to the
injector. The injector used was basically a commercially available
gasoline injector. This was mounted on the manifold such that
the water spray would not impinge on the walls. The injection
pressure was maintained at 2 bar. This pressure was found to lead
to a well atomized spray. The complete injection system is indi-
cated in Fig. 3. The injector was mounted in the manifold in such
a way that the spray of water will not impinge on the wall.

2.5. Development of manifold timed water injection system

An electronically controlled system to inject water into the
manifold during the intake stroke for any fixed crank angle dura-
tion was developed and installed on the engine. This consisted of
a high pressure water pump which fed a solenoid operated injec-
tor. An electro-optical sensor was mounted on the cam shaft to de-
tect the position of the piston. This sent out a pulse to trigger the
water injection circuit. The electronic circuit could initiate pulses
of varying width. These pulses were amplified and sent to a sole-
2.6. Measurement of emissions
Hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions were
measured by means of a Non Dispersive Infrared Analyzer of the
Horiba make (measuring range for CO: 0–10 vol.%, HC: 0–
10,000 ppm). Nitric oxide (NO) was measured using a Chemilu-
minescense analyzer of Rosemount Analytical make (measuring
range: 0–10,000 ppm). It may be noted that NOx emission was
not measured and only NO emission was measured for the study.
 K.A. Subramanian / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849–857 853

6 5 35
8

Brake Thermal Efficiency (%)

9 7 30

10
25
1
2
20
diesel
3 4
15 w/d:0.4-emul
1. Intake manifold 6. Burette w/d:0.4-injec
2. Injector 7. Water pump 10
3. Electronic circuit 8. Heat exchanger 0 1 2 3 4 5
Brake Power (kW)
4. Optical encoder signal 9. Flow control valve
5. Water tank 10. Pressure gauge Fig. 4. Comparison of brake thermal efficiency with emulsion and injection.

Fig. 3. Water injection system.

Smoke measurement was done using the standard Bosch apparatus
(scale: 0–10).
2.7. Calculation of ignition delay period and heat release rate
Ignition delay was calculated based on dynamic injection tim-
ing. A computer program developed in the laboratory was used
for heat release rate diagram using input of experimental pres-
sure-crank angle data, and it was calculated using first law of ther-
modynamics as given below:
dQ =dt ¼ dU=dt þ P  dV=dt þ dQ w =dt
The heat transfer (dQ/dT) was calculated using the Hohenberg’s
correlation as given below [21]
H ¼ C 1  V 0:06
c  P0:8  T 0:4  ðV p þ C 2 Þ0:8
3. Results and discussion
The effects of using water–diesel emulsion as the fuel have been
compared with water injection at same water–diesel ratio (0.4:1)
on the performance, combustion and emission characteristics of
the diesel engine.
3.1. Performance characteristics of engine
emulsion is better than water injection as regards brake thermal
efficiency. However, the brake thermal efficiency is below diesel
values only at low loads. It is due to overcooling of charge, which
results in poor combustion. Such a tendency has been experienced
by earlier researches also [2]. It may be noted that in the case of the
emulsion, all the water that is introduced is close to the fuel and
this has a significant effect on combustion. That is the reason for
the reduced efficiency at low loads (the temperature is already
low) with the water–diesel emulsion (Fig. 4). With the emulsion,
water concentration near the fuel is always the same irrespective
of the load as long as the water–diesel ratio is held constant. In
the case of water injection the water is uniformly distributed and
hence the water concentration near the fuel is lesser at low loads
ð1Þ where the amount of fuel injected is low. Thus the emulsion seems
to perform worse than injection at low loads.
3.2. Emission characteristics of engine
ð2Þ
CO and HC levels are lower at low loads with the injection as
compared to the emulsion. But it is similar to the water–diesel
emulsion at high loads (Figs. 5 and 6). However, it is always higher
than base diesel values due to incomplete combustion and use of
richer mixtures due to lower brake thermal efficiency. It is re-
ported in literature that HC level starts to decrease at water to die-
sel ratio of 0.5:1 as compared to 0.4:1 and 0.3:1 and the reason for
this is still unclear [3]. Such trends in HC levels have been reported
by other researcher also Bertrand [23]. Matsuo Odaka et al. ob-
served the increasing trend of CO and HC emission with water

It is seen from Fig. 4 that the brake thermal efficiency reduces at

all outputs below diesel values with injection due to poor combus- 0.35
tion as a result of reduction in the charge temperature. In the case diesel
0.3 w/d:0.4-emul
of the emulsion, at high outputs, the brake thermal efficiency with
the emulsion is significantly above the base diesel value. This is w/d:0.4-injec
0.25
CO (% by vol)

due to the enhanced premixed combustion phase and also better

mixture formation with the emulsion. When the emulsion is used, 0.2
the total injected quantity increases as compared to the diesel
mode and this will cause a greater amount of air to get entrained 0.15
into the spray and form a better mixture. In addition, the phenom-
enon of micro-explosion could also aid fuel air mixtures prepara- 0.1
tion and lead to better combustion. The micro-explosion occurs
0.05
when the low boiling point of water trapped in the high boiling
point diesel is heated upon injection into the compressed air. This
0
leads to a sudden expansion of water due to vaporization. This pro- 0 1 2 3 4 5
cess leads to better dispersion of the diesel which encloses the Brake Power (kW)
water. This phenomenon termed as micro-explosion has been dis-
cussed by the researches Murayama [2] and Tsao [22]. Thus the Fig. 5. Comparison of CO emission with emulsion and injection.
854 K.A. Subramanian / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849–857

80 1200
Diesel BP: 4.4kW
70 (975)
1000
60

50
HC (ppm)

800 Die-emul Die-Inj

NO (ppm)
(645) (643)
40
600
30
diesel
20 w/d:0.4-emul 400
10 w/d:0.4-injec

0 200
0 1 2 3 4 5
Brake Power (kW)
0
Fig. 6. Comparison of HC emission with emulsion and injection.
Fig. 8. Comparison of NO emission with emulsion and injection at 100% load.

1200
500
diesel Diesel (459) BP: 1.87kW
1000 450
w/d:0.4-emul Die-Inj
800 400 (369)
w/d:0.4-injec
NO (ppm)

350
600
NO (ppm)

300 Die-emul
400 250 (226)

200
200
150
0 100
0 1 2 3 4 5
Brake Power (kW) 50

Fig. 7. Comparison of NO emission with emulsion and injection. 0

Fig. 9. Comparison of NO emission with emulsion and injection at 40% load.

injection [19]. However, the HC levels are higher with emulsion as

compared to base diesel. The HC level is higher with the emulsion
as the water is closely in contact with the diesel particles and 6
quenches the combustion process. This is no great difference be-
5 diesel
tween the injection and normal diesel modes.
It is seen in Fig. 7 that the emulsion is the more effective in w/d:0.4-emul
Smoke (BSU)

reducing NO levels at given water to diesel ratio. Water injection 4

w/d:0.4-injec
also leads to a significant reduction in the NO levels at high outputs
when the injected water quantity is high. Thus it can find that 3
water that is close to the fuel is more effective in controlling the
2
NO level as compared to the condition when it is uniformly distrib-
uted in the cylinder. Uniform distribution in the cylinder will lead
1
to a global temperature drop and oxygen concentration drop but
local presence of water near the fuel can reduce the oxygen con-
0
centration and temperature near the flame. In addition, Miyauchi 0 1 2 3 4 5
et al. reported that OH radical concentration increases by water Brake Power (kW)
addition, which promotes the oxidation of hydrocarbon fragments
and leads to reduction in NO levels [1]. These factors will be Fig. 10. Comparison of smoke emission with emulsion and injection.
responsible for the observed trends. Since both the methods com-
pared here are mainly to control NO emission at high outputs they
seem to be equally effective on that count as shown in Fig. 8. NO The smoke emission reduction is most significant with the
emission decreased from 975 ppm with base diesel to 645 ppm emulsion as seen in Fig. 10. There is a little change in the smoke
with emulsion and 643 ppm with injection. At low outputs, emul- level between the pure diesel and water injection methods. This
sion is better. So, water injection method is not effective on NO could be due to the absence of the micro-explosion phenomenon
emission reduction at part load as shown in Fig. 9. NO level de- even though there is an additional benefit from increase in OH con-
creased from 459 ppm with base diesel to 226 ppm with emulsion centration and premixed combustion phase by long ignition delay.
where as it was 369 ppm with water injection at 0.4:1 water to Thus the micro-explosion phenomenon may play a major role to
diesel ratio at 1.9 kW power output (40% load). control smoke level with water-in-oil emulsion. Murayama [2]
reported by most of the researchers. Murayama did a notable con-
ture work. It may be noted that combustion characteristics are not
understanding the present work as well as to know the scope of fu-
comparison is to know what are the research gaps available for
temperature level and fuel quality, the primary objective of the
and operating parameter, accuracy of the instrument, atmospheric
ating parameters such as engine type, capacity of engine, design
to compare with others work as the difference in design and oper-
researchers work is given in Table 3. Even though it is very difficult

work
3.3. Comparison between the present work with other researchers

injection method.
taneous reduction of NO and smoke emission at all loads than
7–12), at all loads, emulsion method has higher potential of simul-
part load (Figs. 10 and 12). It may be noted from the analysis (Figs.
sel ratio as shown in Fig. 11. However, smoke emission increased at
emulsion and to 3.2 BSU with water injection at 0.4:1 water to die-
smoke density decreased from 3.6 BSU with base diesel to 2.7 with
concentration could be the reasons [2,24]. At rated load (4.4 kW),
ing to better mixing of the air and fuel and increase in OH radical
and Muller-Dethlefs [24] reported that both micro-explosion lead-
A brief comparison of the present work with other some
SMOKE (BSU) SMOKE (BSU)

Fig. 11. Comparison of smoke with emulsion and injection at 100% load.
Fig. 12. Comparison of smoke with emulsion and injection at 40% load.

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

4
0

Diesel (3.6)
Diesel (0.3)

BP: 1.87 kW

BP: 4.4 kW
Die-emul
Die-emul

(2.7)
(0.1)

K.A. Subramanian / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849–857

Die-Inj

Die-Inj
(0.5)

(3.2)
Table 3
Comparison of present work with other researcher’s work reported in literatures.

Researcher’s name Water–diesel emulsion/water injection Brake thermal efficiency Emission characteristics Combustion
characteristics
Low load High load CO HC NO Smoke
Author (present Water–diesel emulsion (0.4) and water injection Decrease Increase Increase Increase Decrease Decrease Available
work)
Murayama et al. [2] Water–diesel emulsion (up to 0.8 by mass) Decrease Increase Increase Increase Decrease Decrease Limited information
Bertrand [23] Upto 35 vol% in emulsion No No No information Increase Decrease Decrease No information
information information
Park et al. [16] Water–diesel emulsion: 0%, 20% and 40% No High No information No information No No No information
information information information
Nazha et al. [12] Water–diesel emulsion: 20% + EGR ; 16.7% No No Increase Increase Decrease Decrease No information
information information
Coon [25] Water–diesel emulsion: 0–25% No Increase Increase Increase Increase No report No information
information
Afify [26] Water–diesel emulsion: 15%, 30% and 45% by No No Increased at high Increased at high Increased Increased No information
volume information information load, load,
decreases at low load decreases at low load
Sheng et al. [5] Water–diesel emulsion: 0–20% by volume No No No information No information Decrease Decrease No information
information information
Nadeem [7] Water–diesel emulsion: 5–15% Decrease Decrease Decrease No information Decrease Decrease No information
Abu-Zaid [11] Water–diesel emulsion: 0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%) Increase Increase No information No information No No No information
information information
Odaka et al. [19] EGR:17% + water injection 35 g/kg of air No No Increase Increase Decrease No change No information
information information

Note: Increase or decrease of performance and emission characteristics as compared to base diesel.

855
856 K.A. Subramanian / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849–857

tribution in this field of water–diesel emulsion but they did not re- 80
port on water injection. It is well established that water–diesel diesel
emulsion could give beneficial results in NOx and smoke/PM reduc- 75 w/d:0.4-emul

Peak Pressure (bar)

tion but the associated problems of high CO, HC, rate of pressure
rise, low BSFC at lower loads, etc. needs to be addressed. Some of w/d:0.4-injec
70
the problems could be overcome using it along with other tech-
niques such as hydrogen peroxide and diethyl ether [13,14]. The 65
researchers followed different strategies on preparation of
water–diesel emulsion using different surfactants, injection meth- 60
od, type of emulsion such as water-in-oil, oil-in-water and three
phase emulsion. There is no report available till now including 55
the present paper on the effects of surfactants in emulsion on en-
gine performance and emission characteristics and it needs to be 50
studied in future. In addition, emulsion has drawbacks of stability
0 1 2 3 4 5
problems, instantaneous control and variation of water quantity
with respect to load, etc. In these aspects, water injection gets Brake Power (kW)
more important to address some problems. In case of water injec-
Fig. 14. Comparison of peak pressure with emulsion and injection.
tion, a very few information are available. Masahiro Ishida et al.
and Matsuo Odaka et al. reported the benefits of water injection
on NOx emission reduction [18,19]. But CO and HC emission in-
creases and no change in smoke emission. Water injection method
12
may be an effective technique for NOx emission with penality of

Max.Rate of Pressure Rise

other emissions. If NOx emission is a primary target, EGR may be 10
a viable solution as it does not need any additional system. There
is no information available on simultaneous reduction of NOx and 8
smoke emission using water injection. So the lack of information (bar/ca)
on both methods in literatures, the research work was carried out. 6

3.4. Combustion characteristics of engine 4 diesel

w/d:0.4-emul
2
The ignition delay is much higher with the emulsion as com- w/d:0.4-injec
pared to the water injection (Fig. 13). With water injection the 0
temperature at the time of fuel injection will be lower than diesel 0 1 2 3 4 5
values as water that is injected during the intake stroke will vapor- Brake Power (kW)
ize and cool the air. This will lead to an increase in the ignition de-
lay. With the emulsion even though there is no change in the air Fig. 15. Comparison of maximum rate of pressure rise with emulsion and injection.
temperature at the time of injection, the presence of water along
with diesel will increase the specific heat of the droplets (since
the specific heat of water is higher than that of diesel). The droplet
size could also be different for the emulsion as compared to neat 120
diesel. These factors affect the ignition delay with the emulsion. diesel
The ignition delay with the emulsion is 11.7° btdc at 4.7 kW as
w/d:0.4-emul
Heat Release Rate (J/deg-ca)

against 9.7° btdc at the same output with water injection. The peak
w/d:0.4-injec
pressure and maximum rate of pressure rise are also higher with 80
the emulsion due to the high ignition delay (Figs. 14 and 15). Thus
engine operation is rough with the emulsion. Premixed combus-
tion phase increased as compared to diesel due to long ignition de-
40

18
diesel
0
16 w/d:0.4-emul
Ignition Delay (ca)

w/d:0.4-injec
14 load : 80%
-40
12
320 340 360 380 400
10 Crank Angle (deg)

Fig. 16. Comparison of effect of injection and emulsion on heat release rates at 80%
8 load.

6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Brake Power (kW) lay and is slightly lesser with water injection than the emulsion. In
case of injection the diffusion combustion phase is higher than
Fig. 13. Comparison of ignition delay with emulsion and injection. emulsion due to lesser ignition delay as shown in Fig. 16.
 K.A. Subramanian / Energy Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 849–857
4. Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn based on experimental re-
sults by comparing the two methods at the same water–diesel ra-
tio of 0.4:1 as given below.
The brake thermal efficiency is reduced at all outputs below
diesel values with water injection due to poor combustion. At high
outputs, the brake thermal efficiency with the emulsion is signifi-
cantly above the values with water injection. It is even better than
base diesel operation at full load. In the case of the emulsion the
brake thermal efficiency is below diesel values only at low loads.
At full load, brake thermal efficiency is 30.6% with water injection
where as 32.6% with water–diesel emulsion at 0.4:1 water to diesel
ratio.
CO and HC levels are lower at low loads with water injection as
compared to the emulsion. But it is similar to the levels with
water–diesel emulsion at high loads.
Reduction in NO level is less significant with water injection as
compared to the emulsion at low loads. The emulsion is the more
effective in reducing NO level at a given water to diesel ratio.
Water injection also leads to a significant reduction in the NO level
at high outputs when the injected water quantity is high. Since
both the methods are studied mainly to control NO emission at
high outputs they seem to be equally effective on that count. NO
levels are 398 ppm, 477 ppm at 60% load and 645 ppm and
643 ppm at 100% load with emulsion and injection respectively.
Smoke emission is lower with the emulsion than water
injection. It was 2.7 BSU with neat water–diesel emulsion as com-
pared to 3.2 BSU with water injection at full load.
The ignition delay is much higher with the emulsion as com-
pared to water injection. The ignition delay with the emulsion is
11.7° btdc at 4.7 kW as against 9.7° btdc at the same output with
water injection. The peak pressure and maximum rate of pressure
rise are also higher with the emulsion due to the high ignition
delay.
The diffusion combustion phase is prominent with water injec-
tion than the emulsion.
On the whole water–diesel emulsion is more effective in
improving full load brake thermal efficiency and lowering NO
and smoke levels. The method of water injection at the same water
to diesel ratio leads to lesser adverse effects on HC and CO levels
and also to better part load performance. However it is not as effec-
tive as the emulsion in reducing smoke and NO levels at a given
water to diesel ratio. Water–diesel emulsion results in higher igni-
tion delays, peak pressures and rates of pressure rise. It can be con-
cluded that the emulsion method has higher potential of
simultaneous reduction of NO and smoke emissions at all loads
than injection method.
Acknowledgement
The author is very thankful to Prof. A. Ramesh, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, I.I.T. Madras for his suggestions during
this research work.
References
[1] Miyauchi T, Mori Y, Yamaguchi T. Effect of steam addition on NO formation. In:
15th Symposium (international) on combustion. The Combustion Institute,
USA; 1981.
857
[2] Murayama Tadashi, Tsukahara Minoru, Morishima Yaushi, Miyamoto Noboru.
Experimental reduction in NOx, smoke and BSFC in a diesel engine using
uniquely produced water (0–80%) to fuel emulsion. Society of Automotive
Engineers. SAE paper no. 780224; 1978.
[3] Barnaud Frederic, Schmelze Pierre, Schulz Philippe. Aquazole™: an original
emulsified water–diesel fuel for heavy-duty applications. Society of
Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 2001-01-1861; 2001.
[4] Subramanian KA, Ramesh A. A study on the use of water–diesel emulsions in a
DI diesel engine. In: 2nd International SAE-India mobility conference. IIT
Madras, SAE paper no. 2001-28-0005; 2001.
[5] Sheng HZ, Chen L, Zhang ZP, Wu CK, An C, Cheng CQ. The droplet group micro
explosions in water-in-oil emulsion sprays and their effects on diesel engine
combustion. In: Twenty fifth symposium (international on combustion/the
combustion institute); 1994. p. 175–181.
[6] Anna Lif, Krister Holmberg. Water-in-diesel emulsions and related systems.
Adv Colloid Interface Sci 2006;123–126:231–9.
[7] Nadeem M, Rangkuti C, Anuar K, Haq MRU, Tan IB, Shah SS. Diesel engine
performance and emission evaluation using emulsified fuels stabilized by
conventional and Gemini surfactant. Fuel 2006;85:2111–9.
[8] Kadota T, Yamasaki H. Recent advances in the combustion of water fuel
emulsion. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2002;28:385–404.
[9] Cherng-Yuan Lin, Kuo-Hug Wang. Diesel engine performance and emission
characteristics as fuel. Fuel 2004;83:537–45.
[10] Ravikumar TS, Basar Paul D, Michael G.Jensen and Ken Friis Hansen, Emulsified
diesel – an immediate and effective solution for diesel exhaust emission
reduction. Society of Automotive Engineers. In: 2nd International SAE India
mobility conference. SAE paper no. 2001-28-0037; 2001.
[11] Abu Zaid M. Performance of single cylinder direct injection diesel engine using
water fuel emulsions. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:697–705.
[12] Nazha MAA, Rajakaruna H, Wagstaff SA. The use of emulsion, water induction
and EGR for controlling diesel engine emissions. Society of Automotive
Engineers. SAE paper no. 2001-01-1941; 2001.
[13] Subramanian KA, Ramesh A. Use of hydrogen peroxide to improve the
performance and reduce emissions of a CI engine fuelled with water diesel
emulsion. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 2008-01-0653: SP-
2108; 2008.
[14] Subramanian KA, Ramesh A. Use of diethyl ether along with water–diesel
emulsion in a DI diesel engine. Fuels and lubricants. SAE transactions. SAE
paper no. 2002-01-2720. 2002;111(4):1361–1367.
[15] Subramanian KA, Ramesh A. Experimental Investigation on the use of water–
diesel emulsion with oxygen enriched air in a DI diesel engine. Society of
Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 2001-01-0205: SP-1592; 2001.
[16] Park JW, Huh KY, Park KH. Experimental study on the combustion reduction to
control exhaust emissions from heavy-duty diesel powered vehicles. Society of
Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 972961; 1997.
[17] Tsukahara Minoru, Yoshimoo Yasufumi, Murayama Tadashi. W/O emulsion
realizes low smoke and efficient operation of DI engines without high pressure
injection. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 890449; 1989.
[18] Ishida Masahiro, Ueki Hironoku, Sakauguo Daisaku. Prediction of NOx
reduction to control exhaust emissions from heavy-duty diesel powered
vehicles. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 972961; 1997.
[19] Odaka Matsuo, Koike Noriyuki, Tsukamoto Yujiro, Kazuysawa, Yoshida Koichi.
Effects of EGR with a supplemental manifold water injection to control
exhaust emissions from heavy-duty diesel powered vehicles. Society of
Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 910739; 1991.
[20] Sarvi Arto, Kilpinen Pia, Zevenhoven Ron. Emissions from large-scale medium-
speed diesel engines: influence of direct water injection and common rail. Fuel
Process Technol 2009;90:222–31.
[21] Hohenberg GF. Advanced approaches for heat transfer calculation. Society of
Automotive Engineers. Paper no. 790825.
[22] Tsao KC, Wang CI. Puffing and micro-explosion phenomena of water emulsion
fuels. Society of Automotive Engineers. Paper no. 860305.
[23] Bertrand D Hsu. Combustion of water-in-diesel emulsion in an experimental
medium speed diesel engine. Society of Automotive Engineers. Paper no.
860300.
[24] Muller-dethlefs K, Schlader AF. The effect of steam on flame temperature,
burning velocity and carbon formation in hydrocarbon flames. Combust Flame
27:205–15.
[25] Coon CW. Multi-cylinder diesel engine tests with unstablised water-in-fuel
emulsions. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 810250.
[26] Afify EM, Korah NS, Dickey DW. The effect of air charge temperature on
performance, ignition delay and exhaust emissions of diesel engines using W/
O emulsion as fuel. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE paper no. 870555.