Numerical investigation of effects of addition of ethanol to gasoline on Laminar Flame Speed (LFS), autoignition, and wall quenching

Since the advent of automobiles, alcohol has been considered a possible engine fuel1,2. With the recent increased concern about the high price of crude oil due to fluctuating supply and demand and environmental issues, interest in alcohol based fuels has increased2,3. However, using pure alcohols or blends with conventional fuels in high percentages requires changes to the engine and fuel system design2. This leads to the need for a simple and accurate conventional fuels-alcohol blends combustion models that can be used in developing parametric burn rate and knock combustion models for designing more efficient Spark Ignited (SI) engines. To contribute to this understanding, numerical simulations were performed to obtain detailed characteristics of Gasoline-Ethanol blends with respect to Laminar Flame Speed (LFS), autoignition and Flame-Wall interactions. The one-dimensional premixed flame code CHEMKIN® was applied to simulate the burning velocity and autoignition characteristics using the freely propagating model and closed homogeneous reactor model respectively. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) was used to obtain detailed flow, temperature, and species fields for Flame-wall interactions. A semi-detailed validated chemical kinetic model for a gasoline surrogate fuel developed by Andrae and Head4 was used for the study of LFS and Autoignition. For the quenching study, a skeletal chemical kinetic mechanism of gasoline surrogate, having 50 species and 174 reactions was used. The surrogate fuel was defined as a mixture of pure n-heptane, isooctane, and toluene. For LFS study, the ethanol volume fraction was varied from 0 to 85%, initial pressure from 4 to 8 bar, initial temperature from 300 to 900K, and dilution from 0 to 32%. Whereas for Autoignition study, the ethanol volume fraction was varied between 0 to 85%, initial pressure was varied between 20 to 60 bar, initial temperature was varied between 800 to 1200K, and the dilution was varied between 0 to 32% at equivalence ratios of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 to represent the in-cylinder conditions of a SI engine. For quenching study three Ethanol blends, namely E0, E25 and E85 are described in detail at an initial pressure of 8 atm and 17 atm. Initial wall temperature was taken to be 400 K. Quenching thicknesses and heat fluxes to the wall were computed. The laminar flame speed was found to increase with ethanol concentration and temperature but decrease with pressure and dilution. The autoignition time was found to increase with ethanol concentration at lower temperatures but was found to decrease marginally at higher temperatures. The autoignition time was also found to decrease with pressure and equivalence ratio but increase with dilution. The average quenching thickness was found to decrease with an increase in Ethanol concentration in the blend. Heat flux to the wall increased with increase in ethanol percentage in the blend and at higher initial pressures. Whereas the wall heat flux decreased with an increase in dilution. Unburned Hydrocarbon (UHC) and CO % was also found to decrease with ethanol concentration in the blend.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LLDPE/CaCO3 MODIFIERS WITH AND WITHOUT TITANATE COUPLING AGENT ON ASPHALT BINDER AND MIXTURE

The complexity and challenge created by asphalt material motivates researchers and engineers to investigate the behavior of this material to develop a better understanding, and improve the performance of asphalt pavement. Over decades, a wide range of modification at macro, meso, micro and nano scales have been conducted to improve the performance of asphalt pavement. This study was initiated to utilize the newly developed asphalt modifier pellets. These pellets consisted of different combinations of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) and titanate coupling agent (CA) to improve the asphalt binder as well as pavement performance across a wide range of temperature and loading pace. These materials were used due to their unique characteristics and promising findings from various industries, especially as modifiers in pavement material. The challenge is to make sure the CaCO3 disperses very well in the mixture. The rheological properties of neat asphalt binder PG58-28 and modified asphalt binder (PG58-28/LLDPE, PG58-28/CaCO3, PG58-28/CaCO3/LLDPE, and PG58-28/CaCO3/LLDPE/CA), were determined using rotational viscometer (RV) test, dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) test and bending beam rheometer test. In the DSR test, the specimens were evaluated using frequency sweep and multiple shear creep recovery (MSCR). The asphalt mixtures (aggregate/PG58-28, aggregate/ PG58-28/LLDPE, aggregate/PG58-28/CaCO3, aggregate/PG58-28/LLDPE/CaCO3 and aggregate/PG58-28/LLDPE/CaCO3/CA) were evaluated using the four point beam fatigue test, the dynamic modulus (E*) test, and tensile strength test (to determines tensile strength ratio, TSR). The RV test results show that all modified asphalt binders have a higher viscosity compared to the neat asphalt binder (PG58-28). Based on the Jnr results (using MSCR test), all the modified asphalt binders have a better resistance to rutting compared to the neat asphalt binder. A higher modifier contents have resulted in a better recovery percentage of asphalt binder (higher resistance to rutting), except the specimens prepared using PECC’s modified asphalt binder (PG58-28/CaCO3/LLDPE). The BBR test results show that all the modified asphalt binders have shown comparable performance in term of resistance to low temperature cracking, except the specimen prepared using the LLDPE modifier. Overall, 5 wt% LLDPE modified asphalt binder was found to be the best asphalt binder in terms of resistance to rutting. Meanwhile, 3 wt% PECC-1CA’s modified asphalt binder can be considered as the best (in terms of resistance to thermal cracking) with the lowest mean critical cracking temperature. The appearance of CaCO3 was found useful merely in improving the resistance to fatigue cracking of asphalt mixture. However, application of LLDPE has undermined the fatigue life of asphalt mixtures. Adding LLDPE and coupling agent throughout this study does not sufficiently help in terms of elastic behavior which essential to enhance the resistance to fatigue cracking. In contrast, application of LLDPE has increased the indirect tensile strength values and TSR of asphalt mixtures, indicates a better resistance to moisture damage. The usage of the coupling agent does not change the behavior of the asphalt mixture, which could be due to imbalance effects resulted by combination of LLDPE and CaCO3 in asphalt binder. Further investigations without incorporating CaCO3 should be conducted further. To investigate the feasibility of using LLDPE and coupling agent as modifiers in asphalt pavements, more research should be conducted on different percentages of LLDPE (less than 3 wt%), and at the higher and w wider range of coupling agent content, from 3 wt% to 7 wt% based on the polymer mass.