0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Internal Combustion Engines

A Comparative Study of Different Methods of Using Animal Fat as a Fuel in a Compression Ignition Engine

[+] Author and Article Information
M. Senthil Kumar, A. Kerihuel, M. Tazerout

Département Systèmes Energétiques et Environnement, Ecole des Mines de Nantes, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, BP 10722, 44307 Nantes, Cedex 03, France

J. Bellettre1

Département Systèmes Energétiques et Environnement, Ecole des Mines de Nantes, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, BP 10722, 44307 Nantes, Cedex 03, FranceJerome.bellettre@emn.fr

1

To whom correspondence should be addressed.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 128(4), 907-914 (Oct 17, 2005) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2180278 History: Received October 04, 2004; Revised October 17, 2005

This work explores a comparative study of different methods of using animal fat as a fuel in a compression ignition engine. A single-cylinder air-cooled, direct-injection diesel engine is used to test the fuels at 100% and 60% of the maximum engine power output conditions. Initially, animal fat is tested as fuel at normal temperature. Then, it is preheated to 70°C and used as fuel. Finally, animal fat is converted into methanol and ethanol emulsions using water and tested as fuel. A drop in cylinder peak pressure, longer ignition delay, and a lower premixed combustion rate are observed with neat animal fat as compared to neat diesel. With fat preheating and emulsions, there is an improvement in cylinder peak pressure and maximum rate of pressure rise. Ignition delay becomes longer with both the emulsions as compared to neat fats. However, preheating shows shorter ignition delay. Improvement in heat release rates is achieved with all the methods as compared to neat fats. At normal temperature, neat animal fat results in higher specific energy consumption and exhaust gas temperature as compared to neat diesel at both power outputs. Preheating and emulsions of animal fat show improvement in performance as compared to neat fat. Smoke is lower with neat fat as compared to neat diesel. It reduces further with all the methods. At peak power output, the smoke level is found as 0.89m1 with methanol, 0.28m1 with ethanol emulsions, and 1.7m1 with fat preheating, whereas it is 3.7m1 with neat fat and 6.3m1 with neat diesel. Methanol and ethanol emulsions significantly reduce NO emissions due to the vaporization of water and alcohols. However, NO increases with fat preheating due to high in-cylinder temperature. Higher unburned hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions are found with neat fat as compared to neat diesel at both power outputs. However, these emissions are considerably reduced with all the methods. It is finally concluded that adopting emulsification with the animal fat can lead to a reduction in emissions and an improvement in combustion characteristics of a diesel engine.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Cylinder pressure crank-angle diagram with methanol animal fat emulsion at maximum power output

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Cylinder pressure crank-angle diagram with preheated fat at maximum power output

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Variation of cylinder peak pressure with different methods

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Variation of maximum rate of pressure rise with different methods

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Variation of ignition delay with different methods

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Variation of combustion duration with different methods

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Variation of heat release rate with methanol emulsion at peak power output

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Variation of heat release rate with ethanol emulsion at peak power output

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Variation of heat release rate with preheated animal fat at peak power output

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Variation of heat release rate with ethanol emulsion at part load

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Variation of specific energy consumption with different methods

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Variation of exhaust gas temperature with different methods

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Variation of smoke density with different methods

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Variation of hydrocarbon emissions with different methods

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Variation of carbon monoxide emissions with different methods

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Variation of nitric oxide emission with different methods

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In