You are on page 1of 9

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 396–404


www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Experimental determination of suitable ethanol–gasoline blend rate


at high compression ratio for gasoline engine
M. Bahattin Celik *
Karabuk University, Technical Education Faculty, 78050 Karabuk, Turkey

Received 17 April 2007; accepted 26 October 2007


Available online 19 November 2007

Abstract

Ethanol produced from biomass has high octane number and gives lower emissions. Therefore, it is used as alternative fuel in the
gasoline engines. In this study, ethanol was used as fuel at high compression ratio to improve performance and to reduce emissions
in a small gasoline engine with low efficiency. Initially, the engine whose compression ratio was 6/1 was tested with gasoline, E25
(75% gasoline + 25% ethanol), E50, E75 and E100 fuels at a constant load and speed. It was determined from the experimental results
that the most suitable fuel in terms of performance and emissions was E50. Then, the compression ratio was raised from 6/1 to 10/1. The
engine was tested with E0 fuel at a compression ratio of 6/1 and with E50 fuel at a compression ratio of 10/1 at full load and various
speeds without any knock. The cylinder pressures were recorded for each compression ratio and fuel. The experimental results showed
that engine power increased by about 29% when running with E50 fuel compared to the running with E0 fuel. Moreover, the specific fuel
consumption, and CO, CO2, HC and NOx emissions were reduced by about 3%, 53%, 10%, 12% and 19%, respectively.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ethanol; Performance; Emissions; High compression ratio

1. Introduction and thus higher mass throughput [3]. In theory, for an


un-throttled Otto-cycle engine, the efficiency g can be writ-
The increasing demand for energy and stringent pollu- ten as g = 1 (1/ek 1), where e is compression ratio and k
tion regulations as a result of the population growth and is specific heat ratio. If the compression ratio can be further
technological development in the world promote research raised, the heat efficiency and engine power output can be
on alternative fuels [1]. The investigations have concen- improved [4]. As a fuel for spark ignition engines, alcohols
trated on decreasing fuel consumption and on lowering have some other advantages over gasoline, such as the
the concentration of toxic components in combustion reduction of CO and UHC emissions [5]. As ethanol fuel
product by using non-petroleum, renewable, sustainable also has high heat of vaporization, it reduces the peak tem-
and non-polluting fuels [2]. The high octane ratings of perature inside the cylinder and hence reduces the NOx
the alcohols and their high heats of vaporization have emissions [6].
made them preferred fuels for use in-high compression Ethanol is an alcohol-based alternative fuel produced
ratio (CR), high-output engines. High octane values which by fermenting and distilling starch crops that have been
can permit significant increases of compression ratio and/ converted into simple sugars. Feedstocks for this fuel
or spark advance, and high heats of evaporation which include corn, barley and wheat. Ethanol can be produced
can provide fuel–air charge cooling and density increase, from cellulose feedstock such as corn stalks, rice straw,
and sugar cane which are examples of feedstock that con-
tain sugar [7]. As ethanol can be produced from agricul-
*
Tel.: +90 370 4338200; fax: +90 370 4338204. tural crops, its cost can be lower in the states whose
E-mail address: mbcelik@gmail.com economy is largely based on agriculture and it can be used

1359-4311/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.10.028
M.B. Celik / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 396–404 397

as alternative fuel. Thus, dependence for foreign oil is about generally lower regulated engine-out emissions
reduced in these states. The simplest approach to the (CO, THC and NOx) than MTBE did. He et al. [13] inves-
use of alcohols in spark ignition (SI) engines is to blend tigated the emission characteristics of an EFI engine with
moderate amounts of alcohols with gasoline. The second ethanol blended gasoline fuels. In the tests, E0, E10 and
and more technically challenging option is to use alcohols E30 fuels were used. Their results showed that the increase
essentially neatly as engine fuel [3]. of ethanol content decreased THC, CO and NOx emis-
Several studies have been conducted on the usage of eth- sions. El-Emam and Desoky [14] investigated the combus-
anol and ethanol–gasoline blends as fuel in the SI engines. tion of alternative fuels theoretically and experimentally in
Hsieh et al. [5] investigated the engine performance and SI engines. The results showed that there was an increase in
pollutant emission of an SI engine using ethanol–gasoline engine thermal efficiency and decrease in NOx and CO
blends (E0, E5, E10, E20 and E30). Their experimental emissions when ethanol and methanol fuels were used.
results indicated that torque output and fuel consumption Topgül et al. [15] investigated the effects of ethanol–
slightly increase when using ethanol–gasoline blended fuel; unleaded gasoline blends (E0, E10, E20, E40, E60) and
CO and HC emissions decrease dramatically as a result of ignition timing on performance and emissions. The exper-
the leaning effect. When ethanol is added to the blended imental result showed that the brake torque slightly
fuel, it can provide more oxygen for the combustion pro- increased, and CO and HC emissions decreased when eth-
cess and leads to the so-called ‘‘leaning effect”. In another anol–gasoline blend was used. It was also found that
study by Wu et al. [4], ethanol–gasoline blended fuels (E0, blends with ethanol allowed the compression ratio to
E5, E10, E20 and E30) were tested in a conventional engine increase without any knock. Bardaie and Janius [16] inves-
under various air–fuel equivalence ratios for its perfor- tigated the conversion of SI engine for alcohol usage. They
mance and emissions. The results of the tests showed that made some modifications on the carburettor. According to
torque output increased slightly at small throttle opening the experimental results, it was determined that power loss
when ethanol gasoline blended fuel was used. It was also was only 3–4% when running with ethanol compared to
shown that CO, CO2 and HC emissions were reduced with gasoline. Abdel-Rahman and Osman [17] investigated the
the increase of ethanol content in the blended fuel. Yüksel effect of ethanol–gasoline blends (E10, E20, E30 and
and Yüksel [8] investigated the use of ethanol–gasoline E40) on engine performance and emissions at various com-
blend (E60) as a fuel in an SI engine. In this study, it pression ratios (8, 10, and 12). For each fuel blend, there is
was found that using ethanol–gasoline blended fuel, the an optimum compression ratio that gives maximum indi-
CO and HC emissions would be reduced approximately cated power. In this study, optimum compression ratios
by 80% and 50%, respectively. Moreover, significant were found to be 8, 10 and 12 for E10, E20 and E30 fuels,
decreases in the engine power were not observed. Bayrak- respectively.
tar [9] investigated the effects of ethanol addition (from Studies were also carried out regarding the use of alco-
0% to 12%) to gasoline on an SI engine performance and hols as a fuel in the small gasoline engines (25 HP or less).
exhaust emissions. The effective power and effective effi- Charalampos et al. [18] investigated the behavior of a small
ciency increased with increasing ethanol amount in the four-stroke engine when mixtures of gasoline–ethanol and
blended fuel as a result of improved combustion and CO gasoline–methanol were used as fuel. In the engine tests, 11
emissions also decreased. Al-Hasan [10] investigated the test blends ranging from 0% to 100% ethanol with an incre-
effect of ethanol–unleaded gasoline blends on performance ment of 10% were used. CO emissions were decreased as
and emission. The unleaded gasoline was blended with eth- ethanol content in fuel increased. Moreover, HC emissions
anol to prepare 10 test blends ranging from 0% to 25% eth- were decreased as ethanol content in fuel increased, but HC
anol with an increment of 2.5%. Ethanol addition resulted emissions significantly increased when using E90 and E100
in an increase in brake power, brake thermal efficiency, fuel. Jia et al. [19] investigated the emission characteristic of
volumetric efficiency and fuel consumption by about a four-stroke motorcycle engine using 10% ethanol–gaso-
8.3%, 9%, 7% and 5.7% mean average values, respectively. line blended fuel (E10) at different driving modes on the
Yücesu et al. [11] investigated the effects of ethanol–gaso- chassis dynamometers. The results indicated that CO and
line blends (E0, E10, E20, E40, E60) on engine perfor- HC emissions were lower when using E10 as compared to
mance and exhaust emissions in different compression the use of unleaded gasoline. Magnusson et al. [20] investi-
ratios (8/1–13/1). According to the results of the experi- gated the regulated HC, CO and NOx emissions of a two-
ment, it was found that as the compression ratio increased, stroke chain saw engine using ethanol, gasoline and etha-
engine torque and HC emissions also increased. The fuels nol–gasoline blends as fuel. The emissions of CO, HC
containing high ratios of ethanol, E40 and E60 had impor- and NO were reduced when the ethanol content was
tant effects on the reduction of CO and HC emissions. increased. But HC increased when using E85 and E100
Song et al. [12] investigated the effects of the additives of fuels. When using ethanol and ethanol–gasoline blends
ethanol (up to 9.79% ethanol) and methyl tert-butyl ether instead of gasoline, the engine power did not vary signifi-
(up to 20% MTBE) in various blend ratios into the gasoline cantly. Desoky and Rabie [21] investigated the perfor-
fuel on the exhaust emissions in an EFI gasoline engine. mance of small spark ignition engines running on
The experimental results showed that ethanol brought alcohols, gasoline and alcohol–gasoline blends. The results
398 M.B. Celik / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 396–404

showed that the fuel economy benefits of using alcohols To the best of the author’s knowledge, no research has
gasoline blends were found to be substantial. yet been carried out by increasing the compression ratio
Small spark ignition gasoline-fuelled engines can be in the small engines running with ethanol. There are two
found all over the world performing in a variety of roles aims of this study. One of them is to determine the suitable
including power generation, agricultural applications and ethanol–gasoline blend rate in terms of performance and
motive power for small boats. To attain low cost, these emissions for small engines. The other is to investigate
engines are typically air cooled, simple carburettors are experimentally the improvement of the performance and
used to regulate the fuel supply and magneto ignition sys- emissions by testing the engine with suitable ethanol–gaso-
tems are employed [22]. As these engines run at very low line blend fuel at high compression ratio without any
compression ratio and slightly rich mixture, they have very knock.
low efficiency and high emission values. Moreover, these
engines cause significant air pollution as they do not have 2. Experimental studies
a catalytic converter.
From the above literature review, it is understood that The experimental set-up, shown in Fig. 1, consisted of
there are slight increases or decreases in power when the test engine, dynamometer (D.C. dynamometer), fuel and
ethanol and ethanol–gasoline blends are used at the original air flow meters, cylinder pressure measuring system,
compression ratio in the engines. In addition, CO, HC, and exhaust gas analysis system and various measuring equip-
NOx emissions decrease. However, fuel consumption ments. In the tests, a single-cylinder four-stroke small
increases. If ethanol and ethanol–gasoline blends are used engine whose original compression ratio was 6/1 was used.
at high compression ratio, power increases and fuel con- To increase the compression ratio, engine cylinder head
sumption decreases. The compression ratio of air-cooled was changed and the modified cylinder head was used
small engines is low (e.g. 5/1, 6/1). In air-cooled small instead of it. Thus, the compression ratio could be raised
engines, the wall temperatures are higher than those of from 6/1 up to 10/1. To adjust ignition timing, electronic
water-cooled engines and the knock tendency is also higher. ignition system was used instead of magneto ignition sys-
Thus, the compression ratio is kept lower in these engines to tem. Table 1 shows the specifications of the test engine.
prevent knock. Significant improvements can be obtained in For all the tests, the ignition timing was adjusted based
power and efficiency if the small engines with low compres- on maximum torque at each engine speed. The heating
sion ratio can be run at higher compression ratios using value of ethanol is lower than that of gasoline. Therefore,
fuels resistant to the knock. Gains of about 25–30% in it necessitates 1.5–1.8 times more ethanol fuel to achieve
power can be obtained when the compression ratio of an the same energy output. To this effect, carburettor main
engine is raised from 5/1, 6/1 to 9/1, 10/1 [23,24]. Ethanol jet was enlarged and the main jet cross-section was varied
has high octane number, both permits the rising of the com- using a conical screw. The excess air ratio was adjusted
pression ratio and gives lower emission. to 1.0 for all the tests. To prevent the phase separation,

3 4 5 6 7 8

11
12

13 1 2

10

1. Engine 2. Dynamometer 3. Air flowmeter 4. Fuel flowmeter 5. Temperature indicators


6. Exhaust gas analyzer 7. Load and speed indicators 8. Dynamometer control unit
9. Pressure transducer 10. Inductive pick-up 11.Charge amplifier 12.Oscilloscope 13. Computer

Fig. 1. Test set-up.


M.B. Celik / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 396–404 399

Table 1 nol–gasoline blend rate in terms of performance and emis-


Specifications of the test engine sions, the test engine was run at a compression ratio of 6/1,
Items Engine 2000 rpm, MBT (minimum spark advance for best torque),
Mark Lombardini LM 250 full throttle opening, over a k – value of 1.0; with E0 (gas-
Engine type Four-stroke, single cylinder oline), E25 (75% gasoline + 25% ethanol), E50, E75 and
Engine displacement (cm3) 250 E100 (ethanol) fuels. All the data for engine power, specific
Compression ratio 6/1–10/1
Maximum speed (rpm) 3600
fuel consumption, spark timing, exhaust gas temperature,
Ignition system type Transistorized coil HC, CO, CO2 and NOx emissions were collected. The cyl-
Fuel system Carburettor inder pressures were recorded for each compression ratios
Cooling system Air and water cooled and fuels. At all the tests, all values were recorded after
allowing sufficient time for the engine to stabilize.

ethanol with a purity of 99.5% was used in the tests. Prop-


erties of ethanol and gasoline fuels are shown in Table 2. 3. Results and discussion
Emissions were measured with a MRU DELTA 1600L
exhaust gas analyzer. The specifications of the exhaust The tests were performed at two stages. At first stage,
gas analyzer are given in Table 3. Ignition timing was mea- the engine was tested at original compression ratio (6/1),
sured with a Sun Equip Co. TL-06230A ignition timing 2000 rpm, full throttle opening and air excess ratio of 1.0
measurement equipment. with E0, E25, E50, E75 and E100 fuels. The obtained
To measure the in-cylinder pressure of the test engine, a results are given below.
system was developed. The system consisted of a piezoelec-
tric pressure transducer, inductive pick-up, charge ampli- 3.1. The effects of various fuels on engine performance
fier, oscilloscope and personal computer (PC). In this
study, in-cylinder pressure data was collected using a Kis- Fig. 2 shows the effect of various fuels on power and
tler model 601A piezoelectric transducer mounted to the specific fuel consumption (SFC). As the ethanol content
spark plug, Kistler model 5011 charge amplifier, a Hitachi in the blend fuel increases, power also slightly increases.
digital oscilloscope (VC-5430) and a PC were used to When compared to E0 fuel, the power increases of 3%,
record the pressure data. The data regarding the crank 6% and 2% are obtained with E25, E50 and E75 fuels,
angles and the position of the top dead centre were trans- respectively. The heat of evaporation of ethanol is higher
mitted to oscilloscope using an inductive pick-up. than that of gasoline. High heat of evaporation can provide
The engine tune up was checked before the test and fuel–air charge to cool and density to increase, thus higher
measurements were conducted after reaching the working power output is obtained to some extent [3]. However,
temperature of the engine. To determine the suitable etha- power increase starts to decrease when ethanol content is
raised to more than 50%. When running with E100 fuel,
Table 2 it is seen that a 4% decrease in power takes place in com-
The properties of gasoline and ethanol parison with E0 fuel.
Fuel property Gasoline Ethanol Owing to the fact that the heating value of ethanol is
Formula C8H18 C2H5OH
lower than that of gasoline, the SFC increases as the etha-
Molar C/H ratio 0.445 0.333 nol content in blend increases (Fig. 2). Increases of 10%,
Molecular weight (kg/kmol) 114.18 46.07
Latent heating value (MJ/kg) 44 26.9
Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio 14.6 9 Full throttle opening, 2000 rpm, CR=6/1
Auto-ignition temperature (°C) 257 425 2.2 700
Heat of vaporization (kJ/kg) 305 840
Power
Research octane number 88–100 108.6 2.1 650
Motor octane number 80–90 89.7 SFC
SFC (g/kWh)
Power (kW)

Freezing point (°C) 40 114 2 600


Boiling point (°C) 27–225 78
Density (kg/m3) 765 785 1.9 550

1.8 500
Table 3
The specifications of the exhaust gas analyzer 1.7 450
Measurements range Accuracy 1.6 400
CO (vol.%) 0–15 0.01 E0 E25 E50 E75 E100
CO2 (vol.%) 0–20 0.01
Fuel
HC (ppm) 0–20000 1
NOx (ppm) 0–4000 1
Fig. 2. The effect of various fuels on power and specific fuel consumption
O2 (vol.%) 0–25 0.1
(SFC).
400 M.B. Celik / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 396–404

19%, 37% and 56% in the SFC were observed when run- basic form; it can be treated as a partially oxidized hydro-
ning with E25, E50, E75 and E100 fuels, respectively. carbon when ethanol is added to the blended fuel. There-
fore, CO and HC emissions decrease [8]. As seen from
this figure, HC decreases to some extent as ethanol added
3.2. The effects of various fuels on exhaust emissions to gasoline increases. The value of HC declines to
271 ppm and 245 ppm with E25 and E50 fuels, respectively,
Fig. 3 shows the effect of various fuels on CO and CO2 from 331 ppm with E0. But the significant increases are
emissions. CO is a toxic gas that is the result of incomplete seen in the HC emissions when running with E75 and
combustion. When ethanol containing oxygen is mixed E100 fuels. The value of HC rises to 340 ppm and
with gasoline, the combustion of the engine becomes better 483 ppm with E75 and E100 fuels, respectively. The pure
and therefore CO emission is reduced [18]. As seen from ethanol and higher ethanol content blends reduce the cylin-
Fig. 3, the values of CO emission are about 3.76%, der temperature as the heat of vaporization of ethanol is
2.65%, 2.06%, 1.24% and 0.73% for E0, E25, E50, E75 higher when compared to gasoline. The lower temperature
and E100 fuels, respectively. In addition, the decreases in causes misfire and/or partial burn in the regions near the
CO2 emission are observed when ethanol is used. Carbon combustion chamber wall. Therefore, HC emissions
dioxide is non-toxic but contributes to the greenhouse increase, and engine power can slightly decreases.
effect. Because the ethanol contains lower C atom than As the ethanol content in the blend increases, NOx
gasoline, it gives off lower CO2 [4]. The values of CO2 are decreases (Fig. 4). The value of NOx declines to 1711
about 13.25%, 12.14%, 11.62%, 10.25% and 9.51% with ppm, 1434 ppm, 1150 ppm and 988 ppm with E25, E50,
E0, E25, E50, E75 and E100 fuels, respectively (Fig. 3). E75 and E100 fuels, respectively, from 2152 ppm with E0
The effect of various fuels on HC and NOx emissions is fuel. Since ethanol has a higher heat of vaporization relative
given in Fig. 4. Ethanol contains an oxygen atom in its to that of base gasoline, the mixture’s temperature at the
end of intake stroke decreases and finally causes combus-
Full throttle opening, 2000 rpm, CR=6/1 tion temperature to decrease. As a result, engine-out NOx
5 20 emissions decrease [13].
According to the results of experiment carried out at
4 first stage, it was determined that the most suitable fuel
CO 17 was E50 in terms of power and HC emission. CO, CO2
CO2 and NOx were low with E100 fuel also. But HC increased;
3
CO2 (%)
CO (%)

power decreased and SFC increased extremely with E100


14 fuel. HC is a very important emission because it increases
2 with the fuels containing high ratios of ethanol such as
E75 and E100. HC value of E50 fuel was the lowest when
11
1 compared to the other fuels.
At second stage, the compression ratio was raised from
0 8
6/1 to 8/1 and 10/1 and the engine was tested with E50 and
E0 E25 E50 E75 E100 E0 fuels for comparison. These tests were performed at full
Fuel load in the ranges of 1500–4000 rpm at intervals of 500 rpm
and excess air ratio of 1.0. The experimental data could not
Fig. 3. The effect of various fuels on CO and CO2 emissions. be recorded when running with gasoline due to knock at a
compression ratio of 8/1, full throttle opening and low
speeds (1500 rpm and 2000 rpm). As maximum air–fuel
Full throttle opening, 2000 rpm, CR=6/1
600 2500 mixture went into the engine at full throttle opening-low
speeds, the knock tendency became higher. However, the
HC
500 2000 engine could be run with E50 fuel without knock at
NO x compression ratios of 8/1 and 10/1, at full throttle open-
NOx (ppm)

ing-all speeds. The knock was determined from the pres-


HC (ppm)

400 1500
sure–time curves. The knock also showed itself with a
specific knock voice and engine malfunction. The obtained
300 1000
results are given below.
200 500
3.3. The effect of E0 and E50 fuels on performance
100 0
E0 E25 E50 E75 E100 The knock was observed when running with E0 at a
Fuel
compression ratio of 8/1-low speeds (1500 rpm and
2000 rpm). The knock was deduced from the pressure–time
Fig. 4. The effect of various fuels on HC and NOx emissions. curves. The knock also showed itself with specific knock
M.B. Celik / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 396–404 401

voice and engine malfunctions. Fig. 5 shows the superim- 35


posed pressure–time curves of the two fuels at the same E50, CR=10/1
compression ratio (8/1). The tests were not performed at 30
compression ratios of 8/1 and 10/1 with E0 fuel owing to
knock. The knock did not occur at the compression ratio

Cylinder pressure (bar)


25
of 10/1 with E50 fuel.
E50, CR=6/1
Fig. 6 shows the effect of E0 and E50 fuels on power at
various compression ratios. The power obtained with E50 20
fuel is about 6% higher than that with E0 at the same com-
pression ratio. The engine could be run with E50 fuel with- 15 E0, CR=6/1
out knock at the compression ratio of 10/1 and a power
increase of 29% was obtained when compared to the run- 10
ning with E0 at the compression ratio of 6/1. Fig. 7 shows
the superimposed pressure–time curves of the two different
fuels at various compression ratios. The maximum cylinder 5
pressure is obtained with E50 fuel at the compression ratio
of 10/1 and the knock does not occur. The value of this 0
20 0 20 40 60
btdc tdc atdc
CR=8/1
30 Crank angle (deg)

Fig. 7. The superimposed pressure–time curves of two different fuels at


25
various compression ratios (full throttle opening, 2000 rpm).
Cylinder pressure(bar)

E50
20
pressure is about 31 bar. It is seen that the values of pres-
sures are about 22 bar and 21 bar at the same compression
15 E0 ratio (6/1) with E50 and E0, respectively. When Figs. 6 and
7 are examined together, it is seen that there is parallelism
10 between power increase and cylinder pressure increase.
The effect of E0 and E50 fuels on SFC at various com-
5
pression ratios are given in Fig. 8. The value of minimum
SFC with E0 fuel is 411 g/kWh at the compression ratio
of 6/1 and 2500 rpm. When the engine runs with E50 fuel
0
at same compression ratio, SFC increases by about 19%.
20 0 20 40 60 Owing to the fact that the heating value of ethanol is lower
btdc tdc atdc than that of gasoline, the SFC increases. When the engine
Crank angle (deg) runs with E50 fuel at the compression ratio of 10/1, the
Fig. 5. The superimposed pressure–time curves of E0 and E50 fuel (full SFC decreases by about 3%. The SFC increases due to
throttle opening, 2000 rpm, CR = 8/1). E50 fuel were recovered by increasing the compression

4.5 700
E50, CR=6/1
4
E0, CR=6/1
3.5 600
E50, CR=10/1
SFC (g/kWh)

3
Power (kW)

2.5
500
2 E50, CR=10/1
1.5 E50, CR=6/1
400
1
E0, CR=6/1
0.5
0 300
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Engine speed (rpm) Engine speed (rpm)

Fig. 6. The effect of E0 and E50 fuels on power at various compression Fig. 8. The effect of E0 and E50 fuels on SFC at various compression
ratios. ratios.
402 M.B. Celik / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 396–404

ratio from 6/1 to 10/1. In addition, 3% decrease in SFC was pression ratio of 10/1 is about 10% lower than that with E0
obtained. fuel at the compression ratio of 6/1. CO and CO2 have
complementary correlation, that is, with increasing CO
3.4. The effect of E0 and E50 fuels on exhaust emissions emission the amount of CO2 decreases. When Fig. 9 and
10 are examined together, it is seen that CO2 increases as
Fig. 9 shows the effect of E0 and E50 fuels on CO emis- CO decreases with increasing engine speed. CO2 emission
sion. CO emission obtained with E50 at the same compres- depends on air–fuel ratio and CO emission concentration
sion ratio (6/1) is about 45% lower than that with E0 fuel. [4].
CO emissions essentially depend on air–fuel ratio. With the The effect of E0 and E50 fuels on HC emissions is given
increase of ethanol content, CO emission is reduced due to in Fig. 11. HC emission obtained with E50 is about 26%
oxygen enrichment resulting from ethanol. When the lower than that with E0 fuel at the same compression ratio
engine is run with E50 fuel at the compression ratio of (6/1). For E50 fuel, HC emission increases by about 19%
10/1, a 13% lower CO emission is seen when compared with increase in the compression ratio from 6/1 to 10/1.
to the running with E50 fuel at the compression ratio of As the compression ratio increases, the combustion cham-
6/1. CO emission obtained with E50 fuel at the compres- ber surface/volume ratio also increases and this, in turn,
sion ratio of 10/1 is about 53% lower than that with E0 fuel increases HC [23]. When running with E50 at high com-
at the compression ratio of 6/1. pression ratio (10/1), HC decreases by about 12% com-
Fig. 10 shows the effect of E0 and E50 fuels on CO2 pared to the running with E0 at compression ratio of 6/1.
emission. CO2 emission obtained with E50 fuel at the com-
400
4.5 E0, CR=6/1
E0, CR=6/1
4 350 E50, CR=10/1
E50, CR=6/1
3.5 E50, CR=6/1
E50, 10/1 300
3
HC (ppm)
CO (%)

2.5 250
2
200
1.5
1 150
0.5
0 100
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Engine speed (rpm) Engine speed (rpm)

Fig. 9. The effect of E0 and E50 fuels on CO at various compression Fig. 11. The effect of E0 and E50 fuels on HC emissions at various
ratios. compression ratios.

15 2600

14 2200
NOx (ppm)

13 1800
CO2 (%)

12 1400
E0, CR=6/1
E0, CR=6/1
11 E50, CR=10/1 1000 E50, CR=10/1
E50, CR=6/1 E50, CR=6/1
10 600
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Engine speed (rpm) Engine speed (rpm)

Fig. 10. The effect of E0 and E50 fuels on CO2 at various compression Fig. 12. The effect of E0 and E50 fuels on NOx emissions at various
ratios. compression ratios.
M.B. Celik / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 396–404 403

NOx emission obtained with E50 fuel at the same com- References
pression ratio (6/1) is about 33% lower than that with E0
fuel. For E50 fuel, NOx increases by about 22% with [1] S.Y. Liao, D.M. Jiang, Q. Cheng, Z.H. Huang, Q. Wei, Investigation
increasing the compression ratio from 6/1 to 10/1. As the of the cold-start combustion characteristics of ethanol–gasoline
blends in a constant-volume chamber, Energy & Fuels 19 (3) (2005)
compression ratio increases, the combustion temperature 813–819.
also increases and this, in turn, increases NOx. When run- [2] M.A.-R.S. Al-Baghdadi, Improvement of performance and reduction
ning with E50 at high compression ratio (10/1), NOx of pollutant emissions of a four-stroke spark ignition engine fuelled
decreases by 19% compared to the running with E0 fuel with a mixture of hydrogen and methane as a supplementary fuel to
at a compression ratio of 6/1 (Fig. 12). alcohol, in: Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Proceedings, Part D:
Transport Engineering 218 (2004) 543–548.
[3] P.W. McCallum, T.J. Timbario, R.L. Bechtold, E.E. Ecklund,
4. Conclusions Alcohol fuels for highway vehicles, Chemical Engineering Progress
78 (8) (1982) 52–59.
In this study, ethanol was used as a fuel at a high com- [4] C.W. Wu, R.H. Chen, J.Y. Pu, T.H. Lin, The influence of air–fuel on
engine performance and pollutant emission of an SI engine using
pression ratio (10/1) to improve performance and to reduce ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels, Atmospheric Environment 38 (2004)
emissions in a small engine with low efficiency. To this 7093–7100.
effect, the engine’s compression ratio was raised from 6/1 [5] W.D. Hsieh, R.H. Chen, T.L. Wu, T.H. Lin, Engine performance and
to 10/1 and the engine could be run with suitable etha- pollutant emission of an SI engine using ethanol–gasoline blends,
nol–gasoline blend without any knock at full load. Atmospheric Environment 36 (2002) 403–410.
[6] M.A.-R.S. Al-Baghdadi, Hydrogen–ethanol blending as an alterna-
The tests were performed at two stages. Initially, the tive fuel of spark ignition engines, Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 1471–
engine was tested at the original compression ratio (6/1), 1478.
2000 rpm, full throttle opening and air excess ratio of 1.0 [7] M. Balat, Current alternative engine fuels, Energy Sources 27 (6)
with E0, E25, E50, E75 and E100 fuels. According to the (2005) 569–577.
results of these tests, it was found that the most suitable [8] F. Yüksel, B. Yüksel, The use of ethanol–gasoline blends as a fuel in
an SI engine, Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1181–1191.
fuel in terms of power and HC emission was E50 fuel. [9] H. Bayraktar, Experimental and theoretical investigation of using
Afterward, the engine was tested with E0 and E50 at com- gasoline–ethanol blends in SI engine, Renewable Energy 30 (2005)
pression ratios of 6/1, 8/1 and 10/1. In this stage, the tests 1733–1747.
were performed at full load in the ranges of 1500–4000 rpm [10] M. Al-Hasan, The effect of ethanol–unleaded gasoline blends on
at intervals of 500 rpm. But the experimental data could engine performance and exhaust emission, Energy Conversion and
Management 44 (2003) 1547–1561.
not be recorded when running with E0 due to knock at a [11] H.S. Yücesu, T. Topgül, C. Çinar, M. Okur, The effect of ethanol–
compression ratio of 8/1, full throttle opening and low gasoline blends on engine performance and exhaust emissions in
speeds (1500 rpm and 2000 rpm). Therefore, the engine different compression ratios, Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (17–18)
was tested with E0 fuel only at the compression ratio of (2006) 2272–2278.
6/1. E50 fuel enabled the engine to run without any knock [12] C.-L. Song, W.-M. Zhang, Y.-Q. Pei, G.-L. Fan, G.-P. Xu, Compar-
ative effects of the MTBE and ethanol additions into gasoline on
at a high compression ratio (10/1) at full load and all exhaust emissions, Atmospheric Environment 40 (2006) 1957–1970.
speeds. [13] B.-Q. He, J.-X. Wang, J.-M. Hao, X.-G. Yan, J.-H. Xiao, A study on
From the experimental results, it was determined that emission characteristics of an EFI engine with ethanol blended
the engine power increased by about 29% when running gasoline fuels, Atmospheric Environment 37 (2003) 949–957.
with E50 fuel at high compression ratio compared to the [14] S.H. El-Emam, A.A. Desoky, A study on the combustion of
alternative fuels in SI engines, International Journal of Hydrogen
running with E0 fuel. At the same time, the specific fuel Energy 10 (7–8) (1985) 497–504.
consumption, CO, CO2, HC and NOx emissions were [15] T. Topgül, H.S. Yücesu, C. Çinar, A. Koca, The effects of
reduced by about 3%, 53%, 10%, 12% and 19%, ethanol–unleaded gasoline blends and ignition timing on perfor-
respectively. mance and exhaust emissions, Renewable Energy 31 (15) (2006)
As the compression ratio is increased, engine power 2534–2542.
[16] M.Z. Bardaie, R. Janius, Conversion of spark-ignition engine for
increases and SFC decreases. However, HC and NOx emis- alcohol usage-comparative performance, Agricultural Mechanization
sions increase. In this study, thanks to the usage of E50 in Asia–Africa and Latin America 15 (2) (1984) 31–34.
fuel, the negative effect of compression ratio on HC and [17] A.A. Abdel-Rahman, M.M. Osman, Experimental investigation on
NOx was recovered and decreases in HC and NOx were varying the compression ratio of SI engine working under different
obtained. When E50 fuel instead of E0 fuel is used, the ethanol–gasoline fuel blends, International Journal of Energy
Research 21 (1997) 31–40.
SFC increases. Thanks to increases in compression ratio, [18] A.I. Charalampos, K.N. Anastasios, S.D. Panagiotis, Gasoline–
the negative effect of E50 on the SFC was recovered and ethanol, methanol mixtures and a small four-stroke engine, Heat and
some decreases in SFC were also obtained. Technology 22 (2) (2004) 69–73.
The test results showed that both significant perfor- [19] L.-W. Jia, M.-Q. Shen, J. Wang, M.-Q. Lin, Influence of ethanol–
mance improvement and emission reduction in the small gasoline blended fuel on emission characteristic from a four-stroke
motorcycle engine, Journal of Hazardous Materials 123 (2005)
engines can be obtained if these engines with low compres- 29–34.
sion ratio could be run at higher compression ratios using [20] R. Magnusson, C. Nilsson, B. Andersson, Emissions of aldehydes and
alternative clean fuels resistant to the knock. ketones from a two-stroke engine using ethanol and ethanol-blended
404 M.B. Celik / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 396–404

gasoline as fuel, Environmental Science and Technology 36 (8) (2002) and Engineering Systems, 7th International Conference, Proceedings,
1656–1664. 3–5 September KES, 2003, Oxford, UK, pp. 722–732.
[21] A.A. Desoky, L.H. Rabie, Comparative performance study of spark [23] M.B. Çelik, H. Yaman, I. Uzun, The effect of varying of compression
ignition engines burning alcohols, gasoline and alcohol–gasoline ratio on power and emissions in spark ignition engine, in: 9th
blends, in: 6th Miami International Conference on Alternative Energy International combustion Symposium, Kırıkkale University, 16–17
Sources, Proceedings of Condensed Papers, 12–14 December 1983, November, 2006, Kırıkkale, Turkey, pp. 496–504.
Miami Beach, FL, USA, p. 331. [24] W.F. Wardznski, T.J. Rychter, Variable R/L research engine-
[22] S.H. Lee, R.J. Howlett, S.D. Walters, A fuzzy control system for a design and preliminary investigations, SAE Transaction (1991)
small gasoline engine, in: Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information 911773.

You might also like