Postinjection Strategy

for the Reduction of the Peak

1 have challenges with regards to the peak pressure rise rate (PRR) and the peak
Marko Jeftić
Department of Mechanical, Automotive,
and Materials Engineering,
University of Windsor,
Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada
e-mail: jeftic2@uwindsor.ca
Ming Zheng
Department of Mechanical,
Automotive, and Materials Engineering,
University of Windsor,
Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada
Pressure Rise Rate of Neat
n-Butanol Combustion
Enhanced premixed combustion of neat butanol in a compression ignition engine can
in-cylinder pressure. It was proposed to utilize a butanol postinjection to reduce the peak
PRR and the peak in-cylinder pressure while maintaining a constant engine load. Postin-
jection timing and duration sweeps were carried out with neat n-butanol in a compres-
sion ignition engine. The postinjection timing sweep results indicated that the use of an
early butanol postinjection reduced the peak PRR and the peak in-cylinder pressure and
it was observed that there was an optimal postinjection timing range for the maximum
reduction of these parameters. The results also showed that an early postinjection
of butanol increased the nitrogen oxide emissions, and a Fourier transform infrared spec-
troscopy (FTIR) analysis revealed that late postinjections increased the emissions of
unburned butanol. The postinjection duration sweep indicated that the peak PRR was sig-
nificantly reduced by increasing the postinjection duration at constant load conditions.
There was also a reduction in the peak in-cylinder pressure. Measurements with a hydro-
gen mass spectrometer showed that there was an increased presence of hydrogen in the
exhaust gas when the postinjection duration was increased but the total yield of hydrogen
was relatively low. It was observed that the coefficient of variation for the indicated mean
effective pressure was significantly increased and that the indicated thermal efficiency
was reduced when the postinjection duration was increased. The results also showed that
there were increased nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and total hydrocarbon (THC)
emissions for larger postinjections. Although the use of a postinjection resulted in emis-
sion and thermal efficiency penalties at medium load conditions, the results demonstrated
that the postinjection strategy successfully reduced the peak PRR, and this characteristic
can be potentially useful for higher load applications where the peak PRR is of greater
concern. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4032765]

Introduction results have shown that certain emissions can be affected by spe-
cific fuel properties. For example, it has been demonstrated that
Increasingly demanding emission regulations have compelled
fuels which contain oxygen and which have less sulfur are suitable
diesel engine manufacturers to significantly reduce the exhaust
for PM emission reduction [24–26]. n-Butanol is a fuel which has
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM)
both of these properties and it has the potential to be used as a
[1,2]. Many technologies have been investigated and developed
neat fuel in a lean-burn compression ignition engine. The fuel
and these can be broadly classified as in-cylinder emission reduc-
properties of n-butanol are shown in Table 1 and the properties of
tion strategies and exhaust after-treatment strategies. A plethora
a diesel fuel are also shown for reference.
of specialized lean-burn after-treatment devices have been
The table illustrates that n-butanol, henceforth simply referred
researched and developed such as the diesel particulate filter
to as “butanol,” has a relatively high oxygen content which should
(DPF) [3–5], selective catalytic reduction (SCR) [6–8], lean NOx
help reduce the PM emissions compared to the diesel fuel. Numer-
trap (LNT) [9–11], and diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) [12,13].
ous studies have demonstrated that the use of butanol fuel in a
In general, multiple devices are required to satisfy the emissions
compression ignition engine helped to reduce the PM emissions
standards and this can lead to complex exhaust systems which
[27–30]. These studies range from the use of neat butanol to dual
can have a high cost [8,14]. In-cylinder strategies include the
use of high-pressure fuel injection [15,16], exhaust gas recircula-
tion [17,18], and advanced combustion modes such as low- Table 1 n-Butanol fuel properties
temperature combustion (LTC) [19,20]. These strategies can have
negative impacts on the fuel economy of the vehicle, such as with Fuel n-Butanol Diesel
the use of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and LTC [21,22], and
it can be difficult to achieve stable operation of the engine when Chemical formula C4H9OH CnH1.77n
heavy EGR is used to achieve LTC [23]. Researchers have also Hydrogen-to-carbon ratio 2.5 1.77
studied the effects of fuel properties on engine emissions, and the Oxygen content by mass (%) 21.6 0
Stoichiometric air-to-fuel ratio 11.2 14.4
Cetane number 25 46.5
1 Boiling temperature at 1 bar ( C) 118 288–339
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the IC Engine Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL Heat of vaporization (kJ/kg) 595 317
OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received January 29, 2016; Density (kg/m3) 810 858
final manuscript received January 29, 2016; published online March 30, 2016. LHV (MJ/kg) 33.1 42.1
Editor: David Wisler.

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power SEPTEMBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 092807-1
C 2016 by ASME
Copyright V

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 fuel port injection of butanol with direct injection of diesel and
fuel blends of butanol and diesel [27–30]. In addition to being an
oxygenated fuel, butanol has a relatively low cetane number
which is suitable for enabling a prolonged ignition delay for
enhanced premixed combustion. Researchers have demonstrated
that the enhanced premixed combustion of neat butanol simultane-
ously produced ultralow soot and NOx emissions compared to
conventional diesel fuel combustion [27]. However, the relatively
low cetane number of butanol and the relatively high latent heat
of vaporization can restrict autoignition of butanol to a very nar-
row operating range with regards to the fuel injection timing and
the combustion phasing [27]. Additionally, the relatively long
ignition delay can lead to very rapid combustion of the enhanced
premixed charge and it can result in an intolerably high peak PRR
and peak in-cylinder pressure (pMAX), even at low engine loads as
shown in engine test studies [27].
To mitigate the issue of high PRR and high in-cylinder pres-
sure, it was proposed to utilize a multiple injection strategy with a
main and a postinjection of neat butanol. The hypothesis was that
the postinjection would be able to generate power without increas-
ing the peak PRR because the postinjection occurs during the
expansion stroke. Furthermore, for constant load tests, the power
produced by the postinjection could allow the main injection to be
shortened and this could reduce the peak PRR. However, the use
of a shortened main injection with a postinjection may result in
reduced thermal efficiency due to a shortened expansion stroke
for the postinjection. Thus, an investigation was carried out to
quantify the benefits of a postinjection for the peak PRR and the
peak in-cylinder pressure reduction and the corresponding effect
on the thermal efficiency and the exhaust emissions. First, a post-
injection timing sweep was done to determine the effect of the
postinjection timing on the PRR and pMAX. The results from the
postinjection timing test were analyzed, and the optimal postinjec-
tion timing was selected for an investigation of the effect of the
postinjection duration on the PRR and pMAX.
Experimental Setup
The experiments were carried out at the Clean Diesel Engine
Laboratory at the University of Windsor. A four-cylinder Ford
Duratorq compression ignition engine was utilized for the study.
A schematic representation of the test setup is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 Schematic of the engine experimental setup
092807-2 / Vol. 138, SEPTEMBER 2016
Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Table 2 Specifications of the test engine
Compression ratio 18.2
Bore (mm) 86
Stroke (mm) 86
Displacement per cylinder (L) 0.5
Number of cylinders 4
Peak cylinder pressure (bar) 180
Number of injector holes 6
Injector nozzle diameter (mm) 0.13
The engine was modified into an arrangement of one research cyl-
inder and three nonresearch cylinders. The three nonresearch cyl-
inders operated on diesel fuel, while the research cylinder utilized
direct injection of neat butanol. The neat butanol fuel was sup-
plied by an independent off-engine fuel cart with an independent
high-pressure fuel pump and a high-pressure fuel rail. A lubricity
improver, OLI-9070.x, was added to the butanol to prevent dam-
age to the fuel system components. The overall volumetric frac-
tion of the lubricity improver was 500 ppmV. The effects of the
lubricity improver on the ignition, combustion, and emissions
were not investigated. Durability tests of the fuel system compo-
nents have not been carried out and conclusions cannot be given
regarding the widespread use of the lubricity improver for fuel
systems in the field. The butanol direct injection was controlled
by LABVIEW software and National Instruments RT/FPGA hard-
ware, while an EFS injector power driver (iPoD) was used to
power and drive the injectors. The maximum injection pressure of
butanol was limited to 1200 bar to avoid vaporization of butanol
within the fuel system. The engine was equipped with six-hole
solenoid injectors. Further details of the injector and the engine
are given in Table 2.
The research cylinder was isolated from the three nonresearch
cylinders by independent intake and exhaust manifolds as illus-
trated in Fig. 1. In addition, the research cylinder had a high-
pressure EGR loop but it was not utilized in these experiments so
it is not illustrated in Fig. 1. The intake air was provided by a
dedicated off-engine compressor. Intake and exhaust gas surge
tanks were installed to provide steady operating conditions for the
engine. All of the data points were measured and recorded under
steady-state conditions. The in-cylinder pressure was recorded by
an AVL pressure transducer. The cycle-to-cycle pressure traces
Transactions of the ASME
 were recorded but, for improved analysis, the pressure and heat
release figures shown in the results represent 200 cycle average
traces taken under steady-state operation. The emission measure-
ments were taken as 10 s steady-state average values.
Various emission analyzers were utilized to investigate the
effect of the postinjection on the emissions. California analytical
instruments (CAIs) nondispersive infrared analyzers were used to
measure the intake carbon dioxide and the exhaust carbon monox-
ide and carbon dioxide. A CAI chemiluminescence detector and
an MKS Instruments FTIR analyzer were utilized for the measure-
ment of the exhaust nitrogen oxides. A CAI heated flame ioniza-
tion detector (FID) and an MKS Instruments FTIR were utilized
to measure the exhaust hydrocarbons. The THC measurement of
the FID generally followed the same trends as the aggregate THC
emissions from the FTIR measurement. However, there were
some differences under operating conditions which produced a lot
of unburned hydrocarbons. This difference was attributed to the
fact that a fully heated sampling line was utilized for the FTIR
measurement while the FID sampling line was mostly unheated.
For this reason, the THC emission figures shown in the results
represent the FTIR measurements. The PM emissions were char-
acterized by the filter smoke number (FSN) measurement of an
AVL smoke meter. As a result, the PM emissions will be repre-
sented as smoke emissions in the “Results and Discussion” sec-
tion. A V&F H-Sense hydrogen mass spectrometer was utilized to
measure the presence of hydrogen in the exhaust.
Results and Discussion
Butanol Postinjection Timing Sweep. The test conditions for
the postinjection timing sweep are shown in Table 3. The tests
were conducted at a constant IMEP of 6 bar. When the postinjec-
tion timing was swept from 10 deg CA to 50 deg CA after com-
pression top dead center (ATDC), the main injection duration was
adjusted to maintain a constant IMEP. The main injection timing
was fixed at 15 deg CA ATDC, and the commanded postinjec-
tion duration was fixed at 300 ls. The fuel injection pressure was
900 bar and the intake air pressure was 1.9 bar absolute for all the
test points.
The effect of the postinjection timing on the peak PRR is dem-
onstrated in Fig. 2. The results showed that the use of an early
postinjection can be an effective method for reducing the peak
PRR and that there was an optimal postinjection timing at which
the minimum PRR was obtained. Without a postinjection, the
PRR was 9.6 bar/deg CA. When an early postinjection was added,
the peak PRR was reduced to 7.0 bar/deg CA. Delaying the post-
injection timing to 20 deg CA ATDC resulted in a further PRR
reduction to below 6 bar/deg CA ATDC. However, the PRR pro-
gressively increased as the postinjection timing was delayed from
20 deg CA to 50 deg CA ATDC.
One drawback of utilizing a postinjection was that the
coefficient of variation of the IMEP (COVIMEP) was increased.
The COVIMEP was calculated from 200 consecutive cycles
according to the definition given in Eq. (1). Figure 2 shows that
the COVIMEP increased from 2.2% (without a postinjection) to
3.5% for a postinjection timing of 20 deg CA ATDC. The reduced
Table 3 Test conditions for postinjection timing sweep
IMEP (bar) 6 as shown in Fig. 4. The crank angle of 50% heat released (CA50)
Engine speed (rpm) 1500
Fuel injection pressure (bar) 900
Main injection duration (ls) Variable
Main injection timing (deg CA ATDC) 15
Postinjection duration (ls) 300
Postinjection timing (deg CA ATDC) 10–50
Air intake pressure (bar abs) 1.9
Intake oxygen (%V) 20.8
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power
Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 2 Effect of postinjection timing on PRR and pMAX
peak PRR and the increased COVIMEP at 20 deg CA ATDC were
primarily attributed to the shortening of the main injection at
constant load conditions.
Figure 3 illustrates the apparent heat release rate (HRR) curves
for the early postinjections which reduced the PRR. The HRR was
calculated based on the measured in-cylinder pressure and volume
as shown in Eq. (2). The equation was derived from Ref. [31].
The figure showed that the addition of an early postinjection
resulted in effective ignition and combustion of the postinjection
fuel as demonstrated by the significant HRR peaks from the early
postinjections. Thus, the early postinjections were able to generate
a considerable amount of engine power and this allowed the main
injection duration to be shortened to maintain a constant IMEP.
The shortened main injection resulted in a reduced heat release
from the main injecting and this was ascribed to be the main cause
for the PRR reduction and for the increased COVIMEP for the early
postinjection tests
rIMEP
COVIMEP ¼ (1)
lIMEP
     
1 dp dV
HRR ¼ V þ cp (2)
c1 dCA dCA
When the postinjection timing was delayed from 20 deg CA to
50 deg CA ATDC, Fig. 4 shows that the postinjection heat release
was reduced, particularly for the very late postinjections. A very
small heat release appeared for the postinjection at 40 deg CA but
a heat release was not visible for the postinjection at 50 deg CA
ATDC, indicating that the postinjection failed to ignite. The poor
ignition of the late postinjections was attributed to lowered in-
cylinder temperatures at the later stages of the expansion stroke
and the relatively low cetane number of butanol fuel. Thus, to
maintain a constant load at these conditions, the main injection
duration was increased and this resulted in an increased peak PRR
compared to early postinjections. However, it was observed that
the use of very late postinjections, at 40 deg CA and 50 deg CA
ATDC, resulted in peak PRR which exceeded that of the case
without a postinjection as shown in the results in Fig. 2. This was
caused by an advanced combustion phasing of the main injection
for the main injection combustion advanced from 9.3 deg CA
ATDC for the case without a postinjection to 7.7 deg CA ATDC
for the case with a postinjection at 50 deg CA ATDC. Very late
postinjections failed to ignite and it was conjectured that the resid-
ual gas may have contained a relatively high amount of unburned
fuel and this may have caused a stronger heat release from the
main injection on the following cycle. However, experimental evi-
dence is required to confirm this hypothesis.
SEPTEMBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 092807-3
 Fig. 3 Impact of early postinjections on the HRR

Fig. 4 Impact of delayed postinjections on the HRR

The results in Fig. 5 indicated that the exhaust emissions of the

Fig. 5 Effect of post-timing on THC, CO, and H2
THC were significantly increased for the postinjections at 35 deg
CA ATDC and later and a hydrocarbon speciation analysis indi-
cated that most of these were unburned butanol fuel as shown in
Fig. 6. Figure 5 also illustrated that the carbon monoxide emis-
sions were reduced for very late postinjections, and Fig. 6 showed
that the light hydrocarbon emissions decreased when the postin-
jection timing was delayed to 50 deg CA ATDC. The very high
exhaust gas THC emissions were an indirect indication of an
increased fraction of hydrocarbons in the in-cylinder residual gas
and this observation contributed to the abovementioned hypothe-
sis regarding the cause for the increased PRR for very late postin-
jection tests. These figures indicated that the light hydrocarbon
emissions were relatively low, the most abundant were formalde-
hyde and ethylene but even these were below 80 ppmV. Hydrogen
was also low and difficult to generate by the butanol postinjection.
This was attributed to a very high amount of in-cylinder oxygen
due to a relatively high air intake pressure and no EGR.

092807-4 / Vol. 138, SEPTEMBER 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 6 Effect of postinjection timing on hydrocarbon
speciation
The peak in-cylinder pressure (pMAX) followed the same trend
as the peak PRR; early postinjections reduced pMAX while very
late injections increased pMAX compared to the single-shot main
injection. However, the peak in-cylinder pressure was not as
significantly affected by the postinjection as the peak PRR. The
minimum pMAX that was obtained was 112 bar at a postinjection
timing of 20 deg CA ATDC. This represented a 10% reduction in
pMAX compared to the case without a postinjection while the PRR
reduction was 40%.
The results in Fig. 2 demonstrated that an early postinjection
was effective for peak PRR reduction, and Fig. 3 indicated that
this was mostly accomplished by shortening the main injection
and using the postinjection to produce additional engine power.
However, the use of a postinjection to generate power may not be
as fuel efficient as using a single shot of fuel with combustion
phasing closer to compression top dead center. The increased CO
emissions shown in Fig. 5 and the increased light hydrocarbon
emissions in Fig. 6 were an indication of reduced fuel efficiency
for early postinjections, while a significant increase in the
unburned butanol emissions was an indication of poor fuel effi-
ciency for late postinjections.
To quantify these observations, the indicated thermal efficiency
was calculated according to Eq. (3) based on the measured fuel
consumption and the indicated power. Figure 7 showed that the
indicated thermal efficiency was reduced by delaying the postin-
jection timing. Without a postinjection and with a postinjection at
10 deg CA ATDC, the indicated thermal efficiency was slightly
above 40%. For postinjections between 15 deg CA and 30 deg CA
ATDC, the indicated thermal efficiency was in the range of
36–38%. This was a moderate reduction compared to the baseline
single-shot case. Thus, it was concluded that the use of an early
postinjection enabled a significant reduction in the PRR but at the
Fig. 7 Effect of postinjection timing on indicated efficiency
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power
Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 8 Impact of post-timing on NOx and smoke emissions
cost of a moderate reduction in the fuel efficiency and increased
CO emissions. Furthermore, the results showed that very late post-
injections had very poor fuel efficiency as indicated by the signifi-
cant drop in the indicated thermal efficiency to 31.6%
P
gth ¼ (3)
m_ f  LHV
For reference, the NOx and smoke emissions are shown in
Fig. 8. The smoke emissions were extremely low, less than 0.05
FSN, regardless of the postinjection timing. This result high-
lighted the benefit of utilizing butanol fuel as previous studies
have shown that diesel postinjections produced significantly
higher smoke emissions, especially for early postinjections
[32,33]. The extremely low smoke emissions of butanol were
accredited to the molecular oxygen present in butanol but also to
the lower cetane number which enabled a very long ignition
delay compared to diesel and facilitated enhanced premixed
combustion.
Except for the postinjection at 10 deg CA ATDC, the NOx
emissions were also very low. The NOx was very low without a
postinjection due to an overall lean (k  4.0) and well premixed
charge. However, the use of early postinjections appeared to have
increased the NOx formation due to a much shorter ignition delay
for the postinjection compared to the main injection as shown in
Fig. 3. The short ignition delay and the relatively high in-cylinder
temperature of early postinjections resulted in poorer premixing
of the postinjection fuel which seemed to have resulted in higher
combustion temperatures and increased NOx emissions. There-
fore, the results indicated that an early postinjection successfully
reduced the peak PRR but at the cost of increased NOx emissions.
When the postinjection timing was delayed, the NOx emissions
were reduced due to lower temperatures at the later stages of the
expansion stroke.
Butanol Postinjection Duration Sweep
The effect of the postinjection duration on the peak PRR was
investigated. The tests were conducted at a constant engine load
of 6 bar IMEP by reducing the main injection duration when the
postinjection duration was increased. The injection timing for
the main and the postinjections were held constant throughout the
sweep. The postinjection timing was selected based on the postin-
jection timing sweep results which indicated that the 20 deg CA
ATDC postinjection had the most significant peak PRR reduction.
Further details of the test conditions are given in Table 4.
The results are presented in Fig. 9. The results established
that the peak PRR was consistently reduced by increasing the
postinjection duration. The peak PRR was reduced to as low as
3.1 bar/deg CA when the postinjection duration was increased to
460–500 ls. This represented a threefold reduction compared to
SEPTEMBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 092807-5
 Table 4 Test conditions for postinjection duration sweep
IMEP (bar) 6
Engine speed (rpm) 1500
Fuel injection pressure (bar) 900
Main injection duration (ls) Variable
Main injection timing (deg CA ATDC) 16
Postinjection duration (ls) 300–500
Postinjection timing (deg CA ATDC) 20
Air intake pressure (bar abs) 1.9
Intake oxygen (%V) 20.8
Fig. 9 Effect of postinjection duration on PRR, pMAX, and
COVIMEP
the single-shot case without a postinjection as shown in the figure.
At the same time, the maximum in-cylinder pressure was reduced
by 11%. These results highlighted that significant reductions in
the peak PRR can be achieved by a long postinjection but that the
maximum in-cylinder pressure reduction was not as significant. In
these test, the maximum in-cylinder pressure was relatively
high due to the high intake air pressure. Reducing the intake air
pressure may result in reduced pMAX but it can lead to unstable
combustion and misfire for neat butanol injection [29].
The results in Fig. 9 also demonstrated that there were very
high cycle-to-cycle variations for very large postinjections. At
500 ls postinjection duration, the COVIMEP was extremely high
(14.9%) compared to 2.3% for a single-shot injection. These
extremely high cycle-to-cycle variations were caused by a very
short main injection which resulted in significantly reduced com-
bustion from the main injection as illustrated by the pressure and
HRR curves in Figs. 10 and 11. For large postinjections, 480 ls
and larger, the postinjection duration and heat release were
actually greater than those of the main injection. This resulted in a
high COVIMEP due to a very lean and well premixed charge from
the main injection and due to reduced combustion temperatures as
shown in Fig. 12. The temperatures in Fig. 12 represent the mean
bulk gas temperatures as calculated by the measured in-cylinder
pressure and volume. Ideal gas was assumed as the working fluid
and Eq. (4) was used for the calculation, utilizing the measured
intake temperature as an initial value. Caution should be used for
interpreting the results in Fig. 12 due to the abovementioned
assumptions and the local in-cylinder temperature variations. The
overall trend shows that the maximum bulk gas temperature was
consistently reduced as the postinjection duration was increased.
This result suggested that high cycle-to-cycle variations corre-
sponded well with the low in-cylinder temperatures for very long
postinjections with a very short main injection. However, a signif-
icant peak PRR reduction was achieved even with shorter postin-
jections, such as with postdurations of 300 ls–420 ls, which had
much lower COVIMEP
092807-6 / Vol. 138, SEPTEMBER 2016
Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
p2 V2 p1 V1
¼ (4)
T2 T1
Increasing the postinjection duration could have a detrimental
impact on the fuel efficiency. Thus, the indicated thermal effi-
ciency was calculated and the results are presented in Fig. 13. The
results demonstrated that there was a gradual reduction in the indi-
cated thermal efficiency when the postinjection duration was
increased from 300 to 420 ls and that there was a large drop in
the efficiency when the postinjection duration was increased fur-
ther to 500 ls. The heat release curves in Fig. 11 illustrated that
there was a visible heat release from all the postinjection durations
at this postinjection timing. Thus, the issue of reduced thermal
efficiency was not due to failed autoignition of the postinjection
fuel as was the case for very late postinjections, such as at 50 deg
CA ATDC as was shown in Figs. 4 and 7. Rather, the reduced effi-
ciency was attributed to LTC of the main and the postinjection
fuel, as shown in Fig. 12. Also, the main injection was shortened
when the post was increased which led to a larger fraction of the
fuel being injected during the expansion stroke, effectively result-
ing in a reduced expansion ratio.
These results indicated that a significant reduction in the peak
PRR could be achieved with moderate postinjection durations
(300–420 ls) but with a penalty of a slightly reduced thermal
efficiency. The results shown in Fig. 14 revealed that there was
also a penalty on the NOx emissions for longer postinjections.
There was a consistent increase in the exhaust NOx emissions as
the postinjection duration was increased. Without a postinjec-
tion, the NOx emissions were less than 10 ppmV but NOx
increased above 20 ppmV for postdurations exceeding 390 ls.
The increased NOx emissions were attributed to a lack of pre-
mixing of the postinjection fuel due to a relatively short ignition
delay compared to the main injection as shown in Fig. 11. For
the main injection, the ignition delay was approximately 15 deg
CA to 20 deg CA but it was about 4 deg CA to 7 deg CA for the
postinjection. Thus, it was expected that there were regions
where the air did not mix well with the postinjection fuel and
this may have led to locally near-stoichiometric air-to-fuel ratios
(AFR) and locally high temperatures which increased the NOx
production by the postinjection. However, for moderate postin-
jections of 300–390 ls, the NOx emissions were still very low
despite the increase compared to the single-shot injection case.
Conversely, the smoke emissions were very low, less than 0.11
FSN, for all the postinjection durations. This was a good indica-
tion that smoke was not an issue for butanol postinjections and
it suggested that very large postinjections can be used without a
smoke emission penalty.
The THC, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen exhaust measure-
ments are shown in Fig. 15. The hydrogen and CO emissions
gradually increased as the postinjection duration was increased.
The hydrogen formation was attributed to the relatively short igni-
tion delay of the postinjection which resulted in increased pockets
of locally fuel-rich AFR. However, the hydrogen yield was rela-
tively low, less than 20 ppmV, even for very large postinjections.
The increased carbon monoxide emissions were attributed to over-
all LTC of butanol with increased postinjection duration, as
shown in Fig. 12, which increased the partial oxidation products.
Further evidence of increased partial oxidation was given by the
light hydrocarbon speciation which showed that there was a
steady increase in the amount of light hydrocarbon species when
the postinjection duration was increased as shown in Fig. 16. The
most abundant hydrocarbon species were formaldehyde and ethyl-
ene. Further studies are required to determine if the light hydro-
carbons and carbon monoxide were mostly generated by the main
or by the postinjection. The unburned butanol emissions were
fairly stable, 31–37 ppmV, when the postinjection was in the
range of 300–420 ls but there was a sudden increase when the
postinjection duration was extended to 440 ls and beyond. This
was further evidence against using very large postinjections.
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 10 Impact of postinjection duration on in-cylinder pressure

Fig. 11 Impact of postinjection duration on HRR

Fig. 12 Impact of postinjection duration on bulk gas Fig. 13 Effect of postinjection duration on indicated efficiency
temperature and IMEP

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power SEPTEMBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 092807-7

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 14 Impact of postinjection duration on NOx and smoke
Fig. 15 Effect of postinjection duration on THC, CO, and
hydrogen
Fig. 16 Effect of postinjection duration on hydrocarbon
speciation
Conclusions
Two sets of test were conducted, a postinjection timing sweep
and a postinjection duration sweep, to investigate the ability of the
postinjection to reduce the peak PRR and the peak in-cylinder
pressure at constant load conditions. The postinjection timing
sweep showed that a significant reduction in the peak PRR was
achieved with relatively early postinjections and that there was an
optimal postinjection timing which produced the most significant
reduction. Furthermore, the use of an early postinjection resulted
in a reduction in the maximum in-cylinder pressure of about 10%.
The PRR and maximum pressure reduction were mainly attributed
to the power generated by the postinjection which allowed the
092807-8 / Vol. 138, SEPTEMBER 2016
Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
main injection to be shortened for constant load operation. How-
ever, early postinjections also slightly increased the COVIMEP,
moderately increased the CO and NOx emissions, and moderately
reduced the indicated thermal efficiency. The results demonstrated
that very late postinjections were not suitable for PRR reduction
and actually increased the PRR compared to the single-shot injec-
tion case. Furthermore, very late postinjections failed to ignite and
it led to a significant increase in the unburned butanol emissions
and a substantial reduction of the fuel efficiency. The smoke emis-
sions remained ultralow throughout the postinjection timing
sweep.
The second set of tests showed that the peak PRR was signifi-
cantly reduced, up to three times, by increasing the postinjection
duration and shortening the main injection duration at constant
load conditions. However, there were extremely high cycle-to-
cycle variations and substantially reduced fuel efficiencies for
very large postinjections of 440 ls and greater. Nevertheless,
shorter postinjections provided up to a two times reduction of the
peak PRR with only a moderate reduction in the fuel efficiency, a
moderate increase in NOx and CO emissions, and a slight increase
in the COVIMEP compared to the single-shot injection case. At the
same time, there was also a reduction in the peak in-cylinder pres-
sure up to 11%. Overall, the NOx emissions were relatively low,
below 30 ppmV even for very long postinjections, while the
smoke emissions were ultralow throughout the test.
The FTIR hydrocarbon speciation results showed that formalde-
hyde and ethylene were consistently the most abundant species
for short and early postinjections while the unburned butanol
emissions increased when the postinjection duration was
increased and the postinjection timing was delayed. Exhaust
hydrogen measurements indicated that hydrogen formation was
very difficult under these test conditions due to the overall very
lean AFR.
Although there were moderate emission and thermal efficiency
penalties at medium load, the results showed that the postinjection
strategy significantly reduced the peak PRR for neat butanol com-
bustion. This attribute may be particularly suitable for higher
load operation where excessive peak PRRs are of greater concern.
Further tests are planned to investigate the postinjection strategy
at higher load conditions.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the NSERC CRD, Discovery,
CRC, PGS, and CREATE programs; the CFI-ORF New Initiative
Program, ORF-Research Excellence programs; the NCE AUTO21
and BioFuelNet programs; the Ontario Ministry of Training,
Colleges, and Universities; the Ford Motor Company; and the
University of Windsor.
Nomenclature
AFR ¼ air-to-fuel ratio
ATDC ¼ after compression top dead center
CA ¼ crank angle (deg)
CAI ¼ California Analytical Instruments
CA50 ¼ crank angle of 50% heat released
CO ¼ carbon monoxide
COV ¼ coefficient of variation
DOC ¼ diesel oxidation catalyst
DPF ¼ diesel particulate filter
FID ¼ flame ionization detector
FSN ¼ filter smoke number
FTIR ¼ Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
HRR ¼ apparent heat release rate (J)
IMEP ¼ indicated mean effective pressure
LHV ¼ lower heating value (MJ/kg)
LNT ¼ lean NOx trap
LTC ¼ low-temperature combustion
m_ f ¼ fuel flow rate (g/s)
Transactions of the ASME
 NOx ¼ nitrogen oxides [14] Sanchez, F. P., Bandivadekar, A., and German, J., 2012, “Estimated Cost of
Emission Reduction Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles,” The International
p¼ in-cylinder pressure (Pa) Council on Clean Transportation, Washington, DC.
P¼ indicated power (kW) [15] Hountalas, D., Kouremenos, D., Binder, K., Schwarz, V., and Mavropoulos, G.
pMAX ¼ peak in-cylinder pressure C., 2003, “Effect of Injection Pressure on the Performance and Exhaust Emis-
PM ¼ particulate matter sions of a Heavy Duty DI Diesel Engine,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2003-01-
0340.
PRR ¼ pressure rise rate (bar/deg CA) [16] Engelmayer, M., Wimmer, A., Taucher, G., Hirschl, G., and Kammerdiener, T.,
SCR ¼ selective catalytic reduction 2015, “Impact of Very High Injection Pressure on Soot Emissions of Medium
THC ¼ total hydrocarbon emissions Speed Large Diesel Engines,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 137(10), p.
V¼ volume (m3) 101509.
[17] Kreso, A., Johnson, J., Gratz, L., Bagley, S., and Leddy, D. G., 1998, “A Study
c¼ specific heat ratio of the Effects of Exhaust Gas Recirculation on Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine
gth ¼ indicated thermal efficiency Emissions,” SAE Technical Paper No. 981422.
k¼ excess air fuel ratio [18] Zheng, M., Reader, G. T., and Hawey, J. G., 2004, “Diesel Engine Exhaust Gas
l¼ mean value Recirculation—A Review on Advanced and Novel Concepts,” Energy Convers.
Manage., 45(6), pp. 883–900.
r¼ standard deviation [19] de Ojeda, W., Zoldak, P., Espinosa, R., and Kumar, R., 2008, “Development of
a Fuel Injection Strategy for Diesel LTC,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2008-01-
0057.
References [20] Subramanian, S. N., and Ciatti, S., 2011, “Low Cetane Fuels in Compression
[1] Johnson, T., 2013, “Vehicular Emissions in Review,” SAE Technical Paper No. Ignition Engine to Achieve LTC,” ASME Paper No. ICEF2011-60014.
2013-01-0538. [21] Kohketsu, S., Mori, K., Sakai, K., and Hakozaki, T., 1997, “EGR Technologies
[2] Johnson, T., 2010, “Review of Diesel Emissions and Control,” SAE Int. J. Fuels for a Turbocharged and Intercooled Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine,” SAE Techni-
Lubr., 3(1), pp. 16–29. cal Paper No. 970340.
[3] Salvat, O., Marez, P., and Belot, G., 2000, “Passenger Car Serial Application of [22] Alriksson, M., and Denbratt, I., 2006, “Low Temperature Combustion in a
a Particulate Filter System on a Common Rail Direct Injection Diesel Engine,” Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Using High Levels of EGR,” SAE Technical Paper
SAE Technical Paper No. 2000-01-0473. No. 2006-01-0075.
[4] Sappok, A., Wong, V., Morrow, R., Zisholtz, E., Doustar, I., and Govani, I., [23] Asad, U., and Zheng, M., 2008, “EGR Oxidation and Catalytic Fuel Reforming
2011, “Investigation of Ash Formation, Accumulation, and Distribution in Die- for Diesel Engines,” ASME Paper No. ICES2008-1684 87-97.
sel Particulate Filters Using Lubricant Additive Tracers,” ASME Paper No. [24] Tsurutani, K., Takei, Y., Fujimoto, Y., Matsudaira, J., and Kumamoto, M.,
ICEF2011-60072. 1995, “The Effects of Fuel Properties and Oxygenates on Diesel Exhaust
[5] Castellano, J., Chaudhari, A., and Bromham, J., 2013, “Adaptive Temperature Emissions,” SAE Technical Paper No. 952349.
Control for Diesel Particulate Filter Regeneration,” SAE Technical Paper No. [25] Zannis, T., Hountalas, D., and Kouremenos, D., 2004, “Experimental Investiga-
2013-01-0517. tion to Specify the Effect of Oxygenated Additive Content and Type on
[6] Akiyoshi, T., Torisaka, H., Yokota, H., Shimizu, T., Ninomiya, H., and Narita, DI Diesel Engine Performance and Emissions,” SAE Technical Paper No.
H., 2011, “Development of Efficient Urea-SCR Systems for EPA 2010- 2004-01-0097.
Compliant Medium Duty Diesel Vehicles,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2011-01- [26] Tan, P. Q., Hu, Z. Y., and Lou, D. M., 2009, “Regulated and Unregulated Emis-
1309. sions From a Light-Duty Diesel Engine With Different Sulfur Content Fuels,”
[7] Prikhodko, V. Y., Pihl, J. A., Lewis, S. A., Sr., and Parks, J. E., II, 2012, “Effect Fuel, 88(6), pp. 1086–1091.
of Hydrocarbon Emissions From PCCI-Type Combustion on the Performance [27] Zheng, M., Li, T., and Han, X., 2015, “Direct Injection of Neat n-Butanol for
of Selective Catalytic Reduction Catalysts,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Enabling Clean Low Temperature Combustion in a Modern Diesel Engine,”
Power, 134(8), p. 082804. Fuel, 142, pp. 28–37.
[8] Gekas, I., Vressner, A., and Johansen, K., 2009, “NOx Reduction Potential of [28] Liu, H., Li, S., Zheng, Z., Xu, J., and Yao, M., 2013, “Effects of n-Butanol, 2-
V-SCR Catalyst in SCR/DOC/DPF Configuration Targeting Euro VI Limits Butanol, and Methyl Octynoate Addition to Diesel Fuel on Combustion and
From High Engine NOx Levels,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2009-01-0626. Emissions Over a Wide Range of Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Rates,”
[9] Tatur, M., Koehler, E., Laermann, M., Tomazic, D., Holland, T., Robinson, D., Appl. Energy, 112, pp. 246–256.
Dowell, J., and Price, K., 2007, “Lean NOx Trap for Heavy-Duty On-Road [29] Yanai, T., Han, X., Reader, G. T., Zheng, M., and Tjong, J., 2014, “Preliminary
Applications—A Feasible Alternative?” SAE Technical Paper No. 2007-01- Investigation of Direct Injection Neat n-Butanol in a Diesel Engine,” ASME J.
4179. Energy Resour. Technol., 137(1), p. 012205.
[10] Al-Harbi, M., and Epling, W. S., 2010, “Effects of Different Regeneration Tim- [30] Chen, Z., Liu, J., Wu, Z., and Lee, C., 2013, “Effects of Port Fuel Injection
ing Protocols on the Performance of a Model NOx Storage/Reduction Catalyst,” (PFI) of n-Butanol and EGR on Combustion and Emissions of a Direct Injection
Catal. Today, 151(3–4), pp. 347–353. Diesel Engine,” Energy Convers. Manage., 76, pp. 725–731.
[11] Theis, J., Lupescu, J., Ura, J., and McCabe, R., 2006, “Lean NOx Trap System [31] Heywood, J. B., 1988, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, McGraw-
Design for Cost Reduction and Performance Improvement,” SAE Technical Hill, Singapore, pp. 508–514.
Paper No. 2006-01-1069. [32] Jeftić, M., Tjong, J., Reader, G. T., Wang, M., and Zheng, M., 2015,
[12] Fl€orchinger, P., and Day, J., 2002, “Principles for the Design of Diesel Oxida- “Combustion and Exhaust Gas Speciation Analysis of Diesel and Butanol Post
tion Catalysts,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2002-01-1723. Injection,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2015-01-0803.
[13] Jacobs, T. J., and Assanis, D. N., 2008, “Characteristic Response of a Produc- [33] Jeftić, M., and Zheng, M., 2015, “A Study of the Effect of Post Injection on
tion Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Exposed to Lean and Rich PCI Exhaust,” ASME Combustion and Emissions With Premixing Enhanced Fueling Strategies,”
J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 130(4), p. 042805. Appl. Energy, 157, pp. 861–870.

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power SEPTEMBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 092807-9

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use