Fuel 89 (2010) 34103415

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Engine performance and exhaust gas emissions of methanol

and ethanoldiesel blends
Cenk Sayin *
Department of Automotive Engineering Technology, Marmara University, 34722 Istanbul, Turkey

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

Article history: In this study, the effects of methanoldiesel (M5, M10) and ethanoldiesel (E5, E10) fuel blends on the
Received 18 December 2009 performance and exhaust emissions were experimentally investigated. For this work, a single cylinder,
Received in revised form 5 February 2010 four-stroke, direct injection, naturally aspirated diesel engine was used. The tests were performed by
Accepted 10 February 2010
varying the engine speed between 1000 and 1800 rpm while keeping the engine torque at 30 Nm. The
Available online 21 February 2010
results showed that brake specic fuel consumption and emissions of nitrogen oxides increased while
brake thermal efciency, smoke opacity, emissions of carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon decreased
Keywords:
with methanoldiesel and ethanoldiesel fuel blends.
Exhaust emissions
Engine performance
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Methanol
Ethanol

1. Introduction
In the last two decades, the researchers and manufacturers have
provided major reductions in the exhaust emission levels of the
diesel engines due to increasing global concern about the air pollu-
tion. However, increasing number of diesel vehicles will probably
bring the same air pollution problem again in the next years. These
forecasts have triggered various research studies in many countries
to replace diesel fuel with oxygenated fuels such as methanol, eth-
anol, etc. [1,2]. Using alternative fuels, such as methanol and etha-
nol in internal combustion engines has the potential to reduce the
dependency on petroleum fuels. Alcohols can be used in compres-
sion ignition (CI) engines as pure or blended with conventional die-
sel fuel [37].
The advantages of alcohols as a fuel include:
Low viscosity compared to diesel fuel, therefore it can easily be
injected, atomized and mixed with air.
Less emission because of its high stoichiometric fuelair ratio,
high oxygen content, high H/C ratio and low sulfur content.
High evaporative cooling, which results in a cooler intake pro-
cess and compression stroke. This raises the volumetric ef-
ciency of the engine and reduces the required work input in
the compression stroke.
High laminar ame propagation speed, which may make com-
bustion process nish earlier, thus improve engine thermal ef-
ciency [8,9].
* Tel.: +90 216 3365770; fax: +90 216 3378987.
E-mail addresses: csayin@marmara.edu.tr, sayincenk@yahoo.com
Signicant amount research has been carried out on the perfor-
mance and emission characteristics of diesel engines fuelled with
ethanoldiesel and methanoldiesel blends. Huang et al. [10]
investigated the engine performance and exhaust emissions of die-
sel engine when using 10%, 20%, 25% and 30% ethanol-blended die-
sel fuels. In that study, the results showed that the brake thermal
efciencies (BTE) decreased with increasing amount of ethanol in
the blended fuels because of the lower heating value (LHV) of eth-
anol. The smoke emissions from the engine fuelled by the blends
were all lower than that fuelled by diesel. Carbon monoxide (CO)
emission reduced when the engine was run at and above its half
loads, but it increased at low loads and low speed. Total hydrocar-
bon (THC) emissions were all higher except for the full loads at
high speed and the nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions were different
for different speeds, loads and blends.
Di et al. [11] researched the effect of ethanol addition (2%, 4%,
6% and 8% in volume) to ultra low sulfur diesel fuel on the emis-
sions of a direct injection (DI) diesel engine. With the increasing
amount of ethanol in the fuel blends, the BTE improved slightly.
The THC and CO emissions decreased but NOx emission increased
when compared to the diesel fuel.
Rakopoulos et al. [12] studied the effects of ethanol blends with
conventional diesel fuel, with 5% and 10% (by volume) on the per-
formance and emissions of a turbocharged, DI diesel engine. The
results showed that CO and NOx emissions decreased, THC emis-
sions increased with the use of ethanol. Increasing the ethanol
amount in the fuel blend increased the brake specic fuel con-
sumption (BSFC) and decreased the BTE.
Naga and Yusaf [13] examined the effect of methanoldiesel
blends on diesel engine performance. In that study, the diesel

0016-2361/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2010.02.017
 C. Sayin / Fuel 89 (2010) 34103415 3411

engine was tested using methanol-blended diesel fuel at certain as BSFC and BTE) and exhaust emissions (such as smoke, THC,
mixing ratio of 10:90, 20:80 and 30:70. Experimental results CO, CO2 and NOx). However, it has not been clearly studied com-
showed that the effective power and torque for diesel fuel were parison of the engine performance and exhaust emissions of etha-
lower when compared to methanol-blended diesel fuel. The best noldiesel and methanoldiesel blended fuels, in particular with
mixing ratio that produced the lowest exhaust temperature was experiments conducted on the same engine. Comparison of perfor-
at 10% of methanol in 90% of diesel fuel. The exhaust temperature mance and emission data from the same engine using different fuel
for diesel fuel was higher compared to any mixing of the blended blends is more meaningful. Therefore, this study focused on the
fuel. The lowest BSFC values were obtained with 30% methanol inuences of ethanoldiesel and methanoldiesel blended fuels
and 70% diesel fuel. The BSFC for diesel fuel was much lower com- on the engine performance and exhaust emissions of the same
pared to any mixing ratio. In that study, it was noticed that BTE im- engine.
proved in almost all operation conditions with the methanol-
blended diesel fuels.
Popa et al. [14] researched the effect of methanoldiesel fuel 2. Test engine and fuel properties
blends on the exhaust emissions. This paper presented the exper-
imental results obtained by providing two different methods of Experiments were carried out on a four-stroke, naturally
diesel fuel and methanol engine supplying. The rst method con- aspirated, single cylinder direct injection diesel engine. The
sists in the methanol admission through a carburetor combined engine has a 770 cc cylinder volume and compression ratio of
with the classic diesel fuel injection and the second one refers to
the separate fuel injection. The exhaust emissions measurements
Table 1
resulted that the smoke and NOx levels signicantly reduced for
Fuel properties of euro-diesel, methanol and ethanol.
all the engine loads with increasing amount of methanol in the
blend. Euro-diesel Methanol Ethanol
[23] [24] [24]
In another study [15], the effect of injection timing on the ex-
haust emissions of a diesel engine was experimentally investigated Chemical formula C14H28 CH3OH C2H5OH
Molecular weight (kg/kmol) 196 32 46
by using methanol-blended diesel fuel from 0% to 15% with an
Flame speed rate (cm/s) 33 35 39
increment of 5%. The tests were conducted for three different injec- Boiling temperature (C) 190280 64.7 78.1
tion timings (15, 20 and 25 CA BTDC) at four different engine Density (g/cm3, at 20 C) 0.84 0.79 0.78
loads (5 Nm, 10 Nm, 15 Nm, 20 Nm) at 2200 rpm. The experimen- Flash point (C) 52 11 13
tal test results showed that BSFC, the emissions of NOx and CO2 in- Autoignition temperature (C) 254 464 423
Lower heating value (MJ/kg) 42.74 20.27 28.40
creased, BTE, smoke opacity, the emissions of CO and THC Cetane number 56.5 4 6
decreased with increasing amount of methanol in the fuel mixture. Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio 14.7 6.66 8.96
When compared the results to those of original injection timing, Octane number Not 109 109
NOx and CO2 emissions decreased, smoke opacity, the emissions applicable
C/H ratio 0.50 0.25 0.33
of THC and CO increased for the retarded injection timing (15
Kinematic viscosity at 298.15 K 2.5  106 0.75  106 151  106
CA BTDC). On the other hand, with the advanced injection timing (cm2/s)
(25 CA BTDC), smoke opacity, the emissions of THC and CO dimin- Carbon content (wt.%) 86 37.5 52.2
ished, NOx and CO2 emissions boosted at all test conditions. In Hydrogen content (wt.%) 14 12.5 13.1
terms of BSFC and BTE, retarded and advanced injection timings Oxygen content (wt.%) 0 50 34.8
Sulfur content (wt.%) <50
gave negative results for all fuel blends in all engine loads. Stoichiometric airfuel ratio 14.28 6.66 9.03
As seen in the literature review, both ethanoldiesel and meth- Heat of vaporization (MJ/kg) 0.27 1.11 0.92
anoldiesel blends inuence the diesel engine performance (such

Mixer

Fuel consumption
Fuel tank
measurement

Tachometer Exhaust gas analyser Smokemeter Exhaust gas analyser

(NOx) (CO, THC)

Dynamometer Diesel engine

Water temperature Exhaust temperature
measurement measurement

Fig. 1. Experimental setup.

3412 C. Sayin / Fuel 89 (2010) 34103415

17:1. The experimental set up consists of a diesel engine, an engine The fuel blends were prepared just before starting the experi-
test bed and fuel consumption metering equipment, gas analyzers ment to provide that the fuel mixture is homogenous. A mixer
and smoke meter. The schematic diagram of the experimental set was mounted inside the fuel tank in order to prevent phase-sepa-
up is shown in Fig. 1. ration. Also, dodecanol was added in proportions of 1% by volume
The fuels used in this study include euro-diesel, methanol and to each dieselmethanol and dieselethanol blends to satisfy mix-
ethanol. Euro-diesel was obtained from TUPRAS Petroleum Corpo- ture homogeneity and prevent phase-separation. The principal
ration. Ethanol and methanol, with a purity of 99%, were purchased specications of the engine and its fuel injection system are given
from a commercial supplier. The major properties of these fuels are in Table 2. To determine the engine torque, the shaft of the test en-
shown in Table 1. The volume percentages tested were 0%, 5% and gine is coupled to an electrical dynamometer, which is loaded by
10% of methanol with 100%, 95% and 90% of diesel fuel, respec- electrical resistance. A strain load sensor was employed to deter-
tively, which were named as D100, M5 and M10. The same pro- mine the load on the dynamometer. The engine speed was mea-
cesses for the mixing were performed with the blends of ethanol sured by electromagnetic speed sensor installed on the
and diesel, the volume percentages were 5% and 10% of ethanol, dynamometer. Fuel consumption was quantied by combined con-
which were named as E5 and E10. tainer method. The temperatures of air inlet, exhaust gas engine
outlet, cooling water and engine oil were measured with a
chromealuminum thermocouple TChK-400 U connected to the
Table 2
galvanometer MKD-50M. CO, CO2 and THC emissions were mea-
Technical specications of the test engine [25]. sured with an infrared gas analyzer (Bilsa Mod 210) with an accu-
racy 0.01%, %0.01% and 1 ppm, respectively. Smoke opacity was
Engine type Super Star 7710
Cylinder number 1
measured with the use of a Bosch system with an accuracy 0.1%
Cylinder bore 98 mm NOx emissions were recorded using an electrochemical gas ana-
Stroke 100 mm lyzer (Kane-May Qintox KM9106) with an accuracy 1 ppm. The
Total cylinder volume 770 cc analyzers were calibrated with standard gases and zero gas before
Compression ratio 17:1
each experiment. The emission data were expressed as brake spe-
Intake valve opens 15 CA BTDC
Exhaust valve opens 15 CA ATDC cic basis (g/kWh) except for the smoke opacity. Brake specic
Original injection pressure 220 bar emissions are the mass ow rate of the pollutant divided by the en-
Original injection timing 27 CA BTDC gine power. The photo of the experimental apparatus is shown in
Injection nozzle Needle valve and four hole nozzles Fig. 2.
Needle valve lifting pressure 150 0.5 bar
Experiments were conducted on at steady states for ve differ-
Maximum torque 39.8 Nm (at 1650 rpm)
Maximum power 7.4 kW (at 1900 rpm) ent speeds (10001800 rpm with 200 rpm intervals) at an engine
load of 30 Nm. At each mode operation, the engine was sufciently

Fig. 2. The experimental apparatus used in the tests.

 C. Sayin / Fuel 89 (2010) 34103415 3413

Table 3 3.2. Total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions

The accuracies of the measurements and the uncertainties in the calculated results.

Measurements Accuracy THC emissions are primarily a result of engine conguration,

Load 2 N fuel structure, combustion temperature, oxygen availability and
Speed 25 rpm residence time. It might be hypothesized that addition of methanol
Time 0.5% or ethanol to diesel fuel improves THC oxidation due to the high
Temperatures 1 C temperature in the cylinder to make the fuel be easier to react with
Calculated results Uncertainty (%) oxygen. At the same time, laminar ame speed is seen to increase
Power 2.55 for alcohols compared with diesel fuel. The increase in the ame
BSFC 2.60 speed will reduce combustion duration but increase combustion
BTE 2.60 temperature. The higher combustion temperature promotes more
complete combustion and hence there are less THC emissions
[18]. This effect could be expected to be most pronounced for eth-
anol because of its ame speed higher than methanol. The results
warmed up for each test and the engine oil temperature was main- obtained in this study conrmed these statements. THC emissions
tained around 8085 C before the data were corrected. All the gas- are shown in Fig. 4 for diesel fuel and fuel blends. In comparison
eous emissions were continuously measured for 5 min and the with D100, the decrease in THC emissions are 40.0%, 37.2%, 34.3%
average results were presented. The steady state tests were re- and 31.5% for E10, M10, E5 and M5, respectively, at 1800 rpm,
peated to ensure that the results are repeatable within the exper- which were obtained at the around of engine speed of maximum
imental uncertainties. The accuracies of the measurements and the torque.
uncertainties in the calculated results are given in Table 3. The engine speed is also important since it affects not only the
quality of combustion but also the combustion process. In the case
3. Result and discussion of short combustion process at high speeds, the amount of THC will
also decrease [19]. For instance, THC emission was found 0.40 g/
3.1. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions kWh with M10 at 1000 rpm, it was 0.25 g/kWh at 1600 rpm.

CO emissions for diesel and four fuel blends are shown in Fig. 3.
CO, formed by incomplete combustion of fuels, is produced most
readily from petroleum fuels, which contain no oxygen in their
molecular structure. Increasing alcohols content in a fuel blend re-
sults in leaner combustion due to partially oxidized nature of alco-
hols relative to hydrocarbons [16]. Thus, for a given airfuel ratio
as shown in Table 1, the use of alcohol allows a higher relative con-
centration of oxygen to exist in the combustion gases and this
achieves a greater conversion of CO to CO2 than for diesel fuel. This
effect would be expected to be most pronounced for methanol
since oxygen accounts for a larger percentage of its molecular
weight than for ethanol. The data in Fig. 3 show this expected
trend. Comparing the D100, there was an average of reduction in
CO emissions 29.7%, 27.3%, 24.2% and 7.1% for M10, M5, E10 and
E5, respectively, at 1400 rpm.
At maximum speed (1800 rpm), the minimum CO was found
0.19% for M10 and 0.21%, 0.22%, 0.23% and 0.25% for M5, E10 and
E5, respectively. The values of CO in all working conditions de-
creased with increasing the engine speed as a result of improved
combustion process. Increase in speed could probably augment
volumetric efciency, boosting turbulence in combustion chamber
hence ensure better combustion [17].
3.3. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions
NOx emissions are shown in Fig. 5 for diesel fuel and fuel blends.
Thermal NOx refers to NOx formed through high temperature oxi-
dation of nitrogen (N2) in combustion chamber. The formation of
NOx highly depends on in-cylinder temperatures, the oxygen con-
centration and residence time for the reaction to take place. At high
combustion (ame) temperatures, N2 and O2 in the combustion
chamber disassociate into their atomic states and participate in a
series of reactions. The three principal reactions producing thermal
NOx are described in Zeldovich Mechanism:
N2 O ! NO N
N O2 ! NO O
N OH ! NO H
For the alcohol blends several mechanism are involved. Firstly,
the oxygen in the fuel might enhance NOx formation. Secondly, the
cooling effect of alcohol, due to the higher latent heating, might
lower the combustion temperature and hence reduce NOx forma-
tion. Thirdly, alcohol can lead to an increase of burned in the pre-
mixed mode because of its lower cetane number and thus an

0.5
0.4
D100 D100
0.45 M5
M5
0.35
E5 E5
0.4 M10
THC (g/kWh)

M10
CO (g/kWh)

0.3 E10
E10
0.35

0.25
0.3

0.2 0.25

0.15 0.2
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Engine speed (rpm) Engine speed (rpm)

Fig. 3. Comparison of CO emissions. Fig. 4. Comparison of THC emissions.

3414 C. Sayin / Fuel 89 (2010) 34103415

4 1
D100 D100
3.5 M5 M5
0.9
E5 E5

Smoke opacity (%)

3 M10
NO x (g/kWh)

M10
0.8
E10 E10
2.5
0.7
2

0.6
1.5

1 0.5
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Engine speed (rpm) Engine speed (rpm)

Fig. 5. Comparison of NOx emissions. Fig. 6. Comparison of smoke opacity.

increase in the combustion temperature [20]. As shown in Table 4,

the exhaust temperature increased with increasing alcohol ratio in
the fuel blend. It is clear from the table that cetane number and
oxygen content are more effective than latent heat of vaporization
with regard to increasing peak temperature in the cylinder. There-
fore, the concentration of NOx increased as the alcohol content was
increased in the fuel blend. As shown in Fig. 5, the increase in NOx
for the methanoldiesel blends is more signicant than that for the
ethanoldiesel blends. This behavior is attributed to the oxygen
content of methanol, which is higher than that of the ethanol
and the cetane number of methanol which is lover than that of eth-
anol. Compared to D100, there was an increase in NOx emissions
about 23.6%, 17.4%, 13.1% and 11.3% for M10, M5, E10 and E5,
respectively, at 1000 rpm.
NOx concentration generally increased with increasing engine
speed. However, after the speed of the maximum torque of the en-
gine (1650 rpm), they started to decrease. For example, NOx emis-
sion was obtained 3.36 g/kWh with E10 at 1600 rpm, it was 1.53 g/
kWh at 1600 rpm.
3.4. Smoke opacity
Smoke opacity is indicative of dry soot emissions which is one
of the main components of particulate matter. The higher is the
alcohol content, the higher reduction in smoke opacity. The lower
smoke opacity can be explained because the presence of fuel oxy-
gen reduces probability of rich zones formation (high local fuelair
ratio) and promotes the oxidation of soot nuclei in fuel combustion
[21]. This result indicates that the oxygen provided by methanol is
more efcient than oxygen corresponding to ethanol because
methanol contains 50 mass% oxygen and ethanol contains
34.8 mass% oxygen. Smoke opacities which were recorded during
the experiments are shown in Fig. 6 for diesel fuel and fuel blends.
The lowest values of smoke opacity were obtained as 52%, 57%,
59%, 61% and 65% for M10, M5, E10, E5 and D100 at 1800 rpm,
respectively.
The values of smoke opacities decreased with the increasing en-
smoke opacity was measured 92% with M5 at 1000 rpm, it was
57% at 1800 rpm.
3.5. Brake specic fuel consumption (BSFC)
The BSFC is dened as the ratio of mass fuel consumption to the
brake power. As shown in Table 1, the maximum LHV (42.74 MJ/
kg) belongs to diesel fuel, followed by ethanol (28.40 MJ/kg) and
the lowest one (20.27 MJ/kg) belongs to methanol. To obtain the
same power output for every test fuel, the BSFC will be higher
for methanol blends because these fuels presents lower LHV than
that of ethanol blends and diesel fuel [22]. BSFC are shown in
Fig. 7 for diesel fuel and fuel blends. The minimum BSFC (298 g/
kWh) was obtained for D100, 304 g/kWh for E5, 308 g/kWh for
M5, 316 g/kWh for E5 and 323 g/kWh for M5 at 1600 rpm. Starting
at the minimum BSFC point, increasing or decreasing speed in-
creased BSFC due to reduction in the engine volumetric efciency.
3.6. Brake thermal efciency (BTE)
BTE are shown in Fig. 8 for diesel fuel and fuel blends. BTE indi-
cates the ability of the combustion system to accept the experi-
mental fuel and provides comparable means of assessing how
efciently the energy in the fuel was converted to mechanical out-
put. From the previous discussion, it could be concluded that, as
the methanol and ethanol amount increases in the fuel blend, the
BSFC increases, because the LHV value of the blend decreases.
Therefore, the BTE decreased as the methanol and ethanol content
increased. Thus, minimum BTE was obtained as 22.2% for M10
which has the lowest LHV.
400
370
BSFC (g/kWh)

gine speed as a result of improved combustion. For example,

340

Table 4 D100
310
Exhaust gas temperature (C) at different engine speeds.
M5
Engine speed (rpm) E5
280
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 M10

D100 198 214 236 262 260

E10
250
M5 211 235 249 281 288 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
E5 200 219 236 270 265
M10 219 237 253 284 294 Engine speed (rpm)
E10 206 227 248 276 270
Fig. 7. Comparison of BSFC.
 C. Sayin / Fuel 89 (2010) 34103415 3415

0.3 [2] Hansen AC, Zhang Q, Lyne PWL. Ethanoldiesel fuel blends; a review. Biores
Technol 2005;96(3):27785.
D100 [3] Kisenyi JM, Savage CA, Simmonds AC. The impact of oxygenates on exhaust
0.28 M5 emissions of six European cars. SAE paper no. 940929; 1994.
E5 [4] Agarwal AK. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal
combustion engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2007;33:23371.
0.26 M10 [5] Kremer FG, Jordim JLF, Maia DM. Effect of alcohol composition on gasoline
BTE (%)

E10 vehicle emissions. SAE paper no. 962094; 1996.

[6] Di Y, Cheung CS, Huang Z. Experimental study on particulate emission of a
0.24 diesel engine fueled with blended ethanoldodecanoldiesel. J Aerosol Sci
2009;40(2):10112.
[7] Bayraktar H. An experimental study on the performance parameters of an
0.22 experimental CI engine fueled with dieselmethanoldodecanol blends. Fuel
2008;87(2):15864.
[8] Wagner TO, Gray DS, Zarah BY, Kozinski AA. Practicality of alcohols as motor
0.2 fuel. SAE paper no. 790429; 1979.
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 [9] Adelman H. Alcohols in diesel engine. SAE paper no. 790956; 1979.
Engine speed (rpm) [10] Huang J, Wang Y, Li S, Roskilly AP, Hongdong Y, Li H. Experimental
investigation on the performance and emissions of a diesel engine fuelled
Fig. 8. Comparison of BTE. with ethanoldiesel blends. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29(1112):248490.
[11] Di Y, Cheung CS, Huang Z. Comparison of the effect of biodieseldiesel and
ethanoldiesel on the gaseous emission of a direct-injection diesel engine.
Atmos Environ 2009;43(17):272130.
4. Conclusions [12] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Kakaras EC, Giakoumis E. Effect of ethanol
diesel fuel blends on the engine performance and emissions of heavy duty DI
diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49(11):315562.
The variations in the engine performance and exhaust emis- [13] Naga G, Yusaf TF. Experimental investigation of using methanoldiesel
sions of a diesel engine using methanoldiesel and ethanoldiesel blended fuels in diesel engine. In: Proceedings of the fourth international
blends were investigated. Considering the experimental results, it conference on thermal engineering: theory and applications. Abu Dhabi, UAE;
2009. p. 15.
is possible to draw the following conclusions:
[14] Popa MJ, Negurescu N, Pana C, Racovitza AC. Resulted obtained by methanol
fuelling diesel engine. SAE paper no. 2001-01-3748; 2001.
 A mixer was used in the fuel tank in order to prevent phase-sep- [15] Sayin C, lhan M, Canakci M, Gumus M. Effect of injection timing on the exhaust
emissions of a diesel engine using dieselmethanol blends. Renewable Energy
aration. Also, dodecanol was added to methanoldiesel and eth-
2009;34(5):12619.
anoldiesel blends to form a stabilized blend. [16] Rice RW, Sanyal AK, Elrod AC, Bata R. Exhaust gas emissions of butanol,
 The use of methanoldiesel and ethanoldiesel blends caused a ethanol, and methanolgasoline blends. J Eng Gas Turbines Power
decrease in the emissions of smoke opacity, CO and THC. How- 1991;113(3):37781.
[17] Sayin C, Uslu K. Inuence of advanced injection timing on the performance and
ever, NOx emissions increased with the use of blends. The forma- emissions of CI engine fueled with ethanolblended diesel fuel. Int J Energy
tion of exhaust emissions was seriously affected by the Res 2008;32(11):100615.
methanol or ethanol content of the blend. [18] Wallner T, Miers SA, Mc Conell S. A comparison of ethanol and butanol as
oxygenates using a DI spark-ignition engine. J Eng Gas Turbines Power
 The BSFC with the all fuel blends increased mainly due to the 2009;131(3):19.
lower LHV of methanol and ethanol. The increase in BSFC with [19] Sayin C, Kilicaslan I, Canakci M, Ozsezen AN. An experimental study of the
the blend M10 was higher than that of E10 and M5 was higher effect of octane number higher than engine requirement on the engine
performance and emissions. Appl Therm Eng 2005;25(89):131524.
than that of E5. [20] Huang J, Wang Y, Li S, Roskilly AP, Yu H, Li H. Experimental investigation on
 All fuel blends yielded a decrease in BTE because the lower LHV the performance and emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with ethanoldiesel
of methanol and ethanol. Among the blends, the lowest BTE was blends. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29(1112):248490.
[21] Pickett MP, Siebers DL. Soot in diesel fuel jets: effect of ambient density, and
obtained from M10.
injection pressure. Combust Flame 2004;138(12):11435.
[22] Karabektas M, Hosoz M. Performance and emission characteristics of a diesel
engine using isobutanoldiesel fuel blends. Renewable Energy
2009;34(6):15549.
References
[23] TUPRAS. Product specication. Turkey; 2009 [in Turkish].
[24] MERCK. Product specication. Germany; 2006.
[1] Cheung CS, Di Y, Huang Z. Experimental investigation of regulated and [25] Super Star. Engine technical specication. Turkey; 2000 [in Turkish].
unregulated emissions from a diesel engine fueled with ultralow-sulfur diesel
fuel blended with ethanol and dodecanol. Atmos Environ
2008;42(39):884351.