Next Article in Journal
Optimization of Fire Brigade Deployment by Means of Mathematical Programming
Previous Article in Journal
A Review on Observer Assistance Systems for Harvested and Protected Fish Species
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biofuel Blends for Desalination Units: Comparison and Assessments
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/pr11041264
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Analysis of the Engine Performance and Emissions Characteristics Powered by Various Ethanol–Butanol–Gasoline Blends

by
Ashraf Elfasakhany
Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
Processes 2023, 11(4), 1264; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11041264
Submission received: 15 March 2023 / Revised: 7 April 2023 / Accepted: 14 April 2023 / Published: 19 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Biomass Co-combustion with Alternative Fuels)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Although many biofuel blends have been proposed recently, comparisons of such blends are rarely investigated. Currently, it is extremely difficult to recommend one biofuel blend over another since comparisons are not carried out under the same engine conditions. In the current study, different biofuel blends in dual and ternary issues are compared together, as well as with conventional gasoline under the same engine conditions. Five different biofuel blends are considered, i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, at two different engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min). Additionally, the blends are compared in the average bases through wide engine speeds. The comparisons of blends are carried out via engine performance and emissions. The performance includes engine power, torque, and volumetric efficiency, while the emissions include CO, CO2, and UHC. Results showed that the E blends presented higher performance than the pure/neat gasoline by about 6.5%, 1.5%, and 25% for engine power, torque, and volumetric efficiency, respectively. Nevertheless the other four blended fuels (nB, iB, nBE, and iBE) presented lower levels of engine performance than the pure gasoline by about −3.4%, −2.6%, −5.2%, and −2.3% for engine power, −1.48%, −0.9%, −1.9%, and −1.7% for torque, and −3.3%, −3%, −2.4%, and −2.7% for volumetric efficiency, respectively. Regarding emissions, the E blends presented the highest CO2 (by about 4.6%) and the lowest CO (by about −20%), while both nB and iB showed the lowest CO2 (by about −35% and −36%, respectively) and the highest CO emissions (by about −10% and −11.6%, respectively). Lastly, iB and nBE introduced, respectively, the highest and the lowest UHC emissions (by about −6.8% and −17%, respectively) among all blends.

1. Introduction

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the countries that produce waste in large quantities, as the amounts of solid waste are about 15 million tons annually, with an average of 1.4 kg per person daily. This is in addition to large quantities of industrial and agricultural wastes. Most of such wastes are valuable to produce renewable energies, such as biofuels [1,2,3,4]. Among the valuable biofuels generated from municipal solid waste (MSW), bio-ethanol, n-butanol, and i-butanol are some of the most encouraging. Studies have been carried out to examine and evaluate the combustion, emissions, and performance of such biofuels in neat and blended issues. In the blended issues, bio-ethanol–gasoline [5,6], n-butanol–gasoline [7,8], and i-butanol–gasoline [9,10] blends have been assessed, and the studies revealed that the combustion, emissions, and characteristics of fossil fuel (gasoline) are meaningfully enhanced by the addition of biofuels. Yousif [11] examined butanol blended with gasoline at high rates (25% and 50% butanol in gasoline). The study studied the influence of such blend ratios on the performance and exhaust emissions, concluding that the butanol led to lower exhaust emissions and higher engine performance. Hosseini [12] applied the effect of using ethanol–gasoline blends in four rates (E5, E10, and E15) on engine performance and emissions. E10 produced the highest torque, while E15 produced the highest power and the lowest CO and HC emissions compared with other fuels. Qadiri [13] computationally checked the effects of 85% ethanol blended with 15% gasoline on the performance, combustion, and emission characteristics. Results showed better emissions and performance when compared with 100% gasoline. Mohammed et al. [14] studied ethanol mixed with gasoline in different proportions (10–40% ethanol) and results showed an improvement in emissions and engine performance (brake-specific fuel consumption and thermal efficiency) but a negative effect on volumetric efficiency. Iodice et al. [15] presented a review on the effects of using ethanol/gasoline fuel blends on engine emissions. The study concluded, in agreement with the literature, that ethanol can reduce CO and HC exhaust emissions. Dehhaghi et al. [16] presented a review on emissions and engine performance when adding nanoadditives to gasoline. The study showed an enhancement of the combustion characteristics and thermophysical properties of the fuel. However, the use of biofuels in neat issues, on the other hand, is still not encouraging because of their high costs and necessary modifications for the globe automotive industry.
Because of encouraging dual biofuel blends, researchers recently moved into investigating biofuels in ternary blended issues. Nazzal [17] evaluated a bio-methanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline blend, and the results showed an enhancement of gasoline combustion and emissions due to the bio-methanol/bio-ethanol additions. Elfasakhany [18] also evaluated the addition of bio-methanol/bio-ethanol to fossil gasoline, and the study recommended ternary biofuel blends. Balaji et al. [19] evaluated bio-ethanol/i-butanol addition to fossil gasoline; the results discovered that all blends increased the fuel consumption, but improved exhaust emissions and performance. Sileghem et al. [20] evaluated bio-ethanol/bio-methanol addition to fossil gasoline, and the authors highlighted improvements in emissions/performance of fuel blends compared to gasoline. Elfasakhany and Mahrous [21] applied the addition of n-butanol/bio-methanol to fossil gasoline, and the results showed promising fuel blends under certain operating conditions. Turner et al. [22] evaluated bio-ethanol/bio-methanol addition to fossil gasoline, and the study somewhat recommended ternary blends over the fossil gasoline. Andersen et al. [23] evaluated the emissions of n-butanol/bio-methanol blended in fossil gasoline, and the results confirmed the superiority of ternary fuel blends over neat gasoline. Elfasakhany [24] evaluated i-butanol/bio-methanol additions to fossil gasoline and compared the emissions and performance of biofuel blends with fossil gasoline; the study declared that ternary biofuel blends are promising alternatives to commercial gasoline fossil fuel.
In addition to investigating the ternary blends compared to gasoline, some studies compared ternary and dual blends of fuel. Elfasakhany [25] evaluated n-butanol/i-butanol addition to fossil gasoline, and the study compared the volumetric efficiency, brake power, and torque of blended fuels with those of pure fossil gasoline and dual blends (i-butanol and/or n-butanol in gasoline); additionally, the study compared UHC, CO2, and CO engine releases between blended fuels and gasoline, and results recommended the ternary blended fuels as alternatives to fossil gasoline rather than dual blend issues (i-butanol and/or n-butanol in gasoline). Siwale et al. [26] evaluated n-butanol/bio-methanol addition to fossil gasoline with rates of 17%, 53%, and 30% for n-butanol, bio-methanol, and gasoline, respectively. The study compared such blends with bio-methanol–gasoline, and the study highlighted that the ternary blends presented higher CO, CO2, and NOx emissions, but lower UHC emissions and thermal efficiency, compared to dual blends (bio-methanol–gasoline).
Despite the many advantages of bio-ethanol, n-butanol, and i-butanol as promising alternatives to commercial gasoline fuel, as clarified above, they show some drawbacks [27,28,29,30]. The negative aspects of bio-ethanol, for example, are that it has low carbon content, which causes low fuel energy content and high fuel consumption; it also has a high volatility aspect, which causes high cavitation and, in turn, requires special precautions for use in different weather conditions (hot or cold). The bio-ethanol also needs high vaporization heat, which leads to combustion difficulty in a cold environment. It has a low flash point, e.g., it burns easily in a hot environment and, in turn, self-ignites in hot weather. It also has lower kinematic viscosity, which causes wear problems and a short life of the fuel system. It has distribution difficulties, since it is transported using only rails, barges, or trucks. Lastly, it is toxic even in small doses. On the other hand, n-butanol and i-butanol also show some drawbacks such as very high emissions per unit motive energy and lower oxygen content in the chemical structures [31,32].
Both i-butanol and n-butanol have valuable characteristics to resolve/moderate the drawbacks of bio-ethanol fuel. For example, i-butanol and n-butanol contain a couple more carbon atoms than bio-ethanol in their chemical structures, leading to higher energy content and stumpy fuel consumption; specifically, i-butanol/n-butanol produced from biomass (using the same quantity) has a ~18% higher energy yield than bio-ethanol. Furthermore, i-butanol/n-butanol have low saturation pressures, e.g., low volatility, causing low cavitation and, in turn, doing away with any special precautions when using i-butanol/n-butanol in different weather conditions (hot or cold). Their high flash points and low vapor pressure make i-butanol/n-butanol suitable and safe fuels for hot environments. Additionally, i-butanol/n-butanol have high kinematic viscosity and can be dissolved into fossil fuels without cosolvents, thereby avoiding/limiting any wearing problems in the fuel system. Lastly, i-butanol/n-butanol are less corrosive in general and more appropriate than bio-ethanol for use in existing fossil fuel pipeline systems.
In the discussion presented above, one can easily notice that the advantages of i-butanol/n-butanol address the drawbacks of bio-ethanol, whereas the advantages of bio-ethanol address the drawbacks of i-butanol/n-butanol biofuels. In the current study, we aimed to investment/exploit the advantages of i-butanol/n-butanol/bio-ethanol biofuels, seeking to establish high/strong promising alternatives to fossil fuels by overcoming or limiting their drawbacks. In the current study, i-butanol/n-butanol are blended with bio-ethanol to provide novel and promising blended fuels (n-butanol–bio-ethanol and i-butanol–bio-ethanol) as alternatives to gasoline. In the study, the proposed biofuel blends are compared together, as well as with the related dual blends, e.g., bio-ethanol–gasoline, n-butanol–gasoline, and i-butanol–gasoline. It is important to highlight that the current study is dedicated to a comparison of such biofuel blends rather than a determination of the detailed combustion and chemical/physical characteristics, which would require a separate study for each blend.

2. Experimental

The experimental setup contained two main components: the engine and gas analyzer. The engine was a spark ignition type with four strokes and a single cylinder, as specified in Table 1 [33,34,35]. The engine was connected with a dynamometer and a desktop computer; the dynamometer was used to control and measure different engine parameters, such as speed and torque, while the computer was connected to collect the measured data from the dynamometer and other sensors, enabling analysis and sorting of the measured data. Figure 1 shows an image of the engine experimental setup. The gas analyzer, on the other hand, was used to measure and analyze the exhaust emissions from the engine. The analyzer weighed about 9 kg and worked in an exhaust gas temperature range of 5 to 45 °C, as shown in Figure 1. It took about 10 min to warm up before measuring the concentrations of CO, CO2, and UHC emissions in the range of 0–10 vol.% for CO, 0–20 vol.% for CO2, and 0–2000 ppm for UHC (considered as C6H14 in the measurement of the analyzer system). The complete specifications of the gas analyzer are shown in Table 1. Further details of the experimental setup and analyzer errors are presented in Section 3.
After warming up the engine and the gas analyzer, different fuel blends were separately inserted into the fuel system of the engine, including i-butanol, n-butanol, bio-ethanol, and conventional gasoline. Such fuels are typically from Saudi Arabia, and the complete fuel properties are shown in Table 2 [36,37,38,39,40]. The fuels were prepared and blended at a rate up to 10 vol.%, and then inserted into the engine tank. Five blends were prepared on a dual and ternary basis: i-butanol–gasoline (iB), n-butanol–gasoline (nB), bio-ethanol–gasoline (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE). The engine was operated at two different speeds during the experiments (2500 and 3500 rpm/min), representing low and high speeds. Additionally, the engine was operated at intermediate speeds, and the measured data were averaged.
Before measurements were made, the errors and uncertainties of the measurements were assessed and calibrated, as defined in our previous study [41]. They were estimated to be within the range of ±2%. The temperature sensor accuracy was around ±1 °C. Other sensor errors were calculated and found to be within acceptable ranges. When it came to the reproducibility of the measures, the standard deviation (SD) was between ±0.5% and ±0.1% SD, and the measurements were practically repeated approximately three times, revealing 90–95% consistency [41].

3. Results and Discussion

Comparisons of five different biofuel blends (dual and ternary) are presented and discussed in terms of engine performance and pollutant emissions. The performance included brake power, torque, and volumetric efficiency, while the emissions included CO, CO2, and UHC. The comparisons were performed at two engine speeds, low (2500 rpm/min) and high (3500 rpm/min), along with an average across intermediate speeds. Figure 2 shows the comparison of brake power (BP) for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at the two applied engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min). As shown, the greatest power was achieved by E dual blends at both engine speeds. The BP of E was greater than that of pure gasoline (baseline); however, all other biofuel blends showed a lower BP than the pure gasoline. The lowest power was recorded for iB at high speed and by nB at low speed. The ternary blends (iBE and nBE) showed a moderate level of power among the fuel blends.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show comparisons of the engine torque (Tq) and volumetric efficiency (VE), respectively, for the tested fuels, i.e., for iB, nB, E, nBE, and iBE blends, as well as the pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min). Similar to the BP results, the E dual blends showed the greatest Tq value (greater than pure gasoline) at both speeds, but all other blends showed lower levels than pure gasoline. The lowest Tq was introduced by iBE at high speed and nBE at low speed. The dual blends of nB and iB introduced moderate levels between E and the ternary blends (nBE and iBE). On the other hand, E dual blends presented the greatest VE (greater than pure gasoline) at both speeds, but all others (iB, nB, nBE, and iBE) presented lower levels than pure gasoline. However, it was difficult to define the best fuel blends at all speeds, as shown in the figure; consequently, comparisons using the average principle were carried out.
Figure 5 shows the comparisons of average brake power, engine torque, and volumetric efficiency for iB, nB, E, nBE, and iBE blends. As shown, the greatest BP, Tq, and VE were introduced by E dual blends. However, the lowest BP and Tq were introduced by nBE, and the lowest VE was introduced by nB. The four fuel blends (nB, iB, nBE, and iBE) showed lower levels of all engine performance parameters (BP, Tq, and VE) than pure gasoline, whereas E blends showed higher performance parameters than pure gasoline. In particular, the BP changed by −2.6%, −3.4%, 6.5%, −5.2%, and −2.3%, the Tq changed by −0.9%, −1.48%, 1.5%, −1.9%, and −1.7%, and the VE changed by −3%, −3.3%, 25%, −2.4%, and −2.7% for iB, nB, E, nBE, and iBE, respectively, compared to pure gasoline.
In summary, the greatest BP, Tq, and VE were introduced by E, and the lowest BP and Tq were presented by nBE, while the lowest VE was introduced by nB. These results may be due to bio-ethanol containing oxygen in its chemical structure (35%, as shown in Table 2). However, both i-butanol and n-butanol contained an oxygen content of about 21.5%, which enhanced blended fuel combustion. Consequently, E blends, which contained the greatest oxygen value, produced the greatest performance (BP, Tq, and VE). All other blends showed lower performance than pure gasoline despite a reasonable oxygen content, due to the incompatibility of such blends with gasoline fuel engines without any sort of tuning/modification. In other words, the four blends (iB, nB, nBE, and iBE) were more sensitive to operation in gasoline fuel engines without adjustments than the E blends. Another reason may have been the blend quality; when mixing different biofuels, blends may not be completely homogenized, e.g., fuel separation problems. This can lead to combustion of separate fuels in the combustion chamber, i.e., nonhomogeneous combustion, reducing the engine performance of such fuels.
Figure 6 compares CO emissions for iB, nB, E, nBE, and iBE blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min). As shown, all blended fuels presented lower CO emissions than pure gasoline; the lowest CO was presented by E at high speed, but nBE at low speed. One interesting note in the CO results of all fuel blends is that the emissions increased with engine speed, except for the E blends, where they decreased. Figure 7 compares UHC emissions for iB, nB, E, nBE, and iBE blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min). As shown, all blended fuels presented lower UHC emissions than pure gasoline, similar to the CO results. The lowest UHC was shown by nBE at low speed, but nB at high speed. Figure 8 compares CO2 emissions for iB, nB, E, nBE, and iBE blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds. As shown, unlike the results for CO and UHC emissions, the E blends introduced higher CO2 than pure/neat gasoline, whereas the other four blends (iB, nB, iBE, and, nBE) introduced lower levels than pure gasoline. The lowest emissions were recorded for iB at low speed but nB at high speed. The highest CO2 emissions were recorded for E blends at all speeds, while the ternary blends introduced moderate CO2 levels.
Figure 9 compares the average CO, UHC, and CO2 emissions for iB, nB, E, nBE, and iBE blends. As shown, the lowest CO emissions were presented by the E dual blend followed by nBE ternary blend, while the highest CO emissions were presented by nB followed by iB. In terms of UHC emissions, the lowest were presented by nBE followed by nB, while the highest were presented by iB followed by E. In terms of CO2 emissions, the lowest were presented by iB followed by nB, while the highest were presented by E followed by iBE. Specifically, the CO emissions for iB, nB, E, nBE, and iBE changed by about −11.6%, −10%, −20%, −18%, and −14%, respectively, compared to pure gasoline. The UHC emissions for iB, nB, E, nBE, and iBE changed by about −6.8%, −16.2%, −10%, −17%, and −14%, respectively, compared to pure gasoline. The CO2 emissions for iB, nB, E, nBE, and iBE changed by about −36%, −35%, 4.6%, −27%, and −14%, respectively, compared to pure gasoline. One exciting note from the results is that the iBE ternary blends presented the same level of CO, UHC, and CO2 emissions (−14%); however, all other blends showed different levels of emissions. Additionally, all blends showed a lower level of emissions (CO, UHC, and CO2) than pure gasoline except for the E dual blends (for CO2). Both iB and nB showed the highest CO and the lowest CO2 emissions among all fuel blends. On the other hand, the ternary blended fuels (nBE and iBE) showed moderate levels of emissions compared to the dual blended ones (E, nB, and iB).
In summary, the E blends presented the highest CO2 and the lowest CO emissions, while both nB and iB presented the lowest CO2 and the highest CO emissions. On the other hand, iB and nBE presented the highest and the lowest UHC emissions, respectively. The E blends may have introduced the lowest CO emissions because of their more complete combustion due to their great oxygen content, as shown in Table 2, consequently introducing the highest CO2 emissions. On the other hand, iB and nB may have introduced the highest CO emissions due to somewhat incomplete combustion, as supported by their lowest CO2 emissions (high CO and low CO2 due to low oxidation). Ternary blends underwent more complete combustion than nB and iB, albeit not as complete as E blends. This outcome is supported by the CO2 results of both ternary blends, which mirrored complete/incomplete combustion. Accordingly, to gain low CO emissions from engines, one should use E dual blends, whereas, to gain low UHC emissions, one should use nBE; however, in the case of iB and nB dual blends being unavoidable, one should add bio-ethanol, e.g., using nBE and iBE ternary blends, to avoid high CO emissions.
A final observation, which may be useful for practical implications, is that the comparisons of different blended fuels were significantly influenced by the engine speed. The lowest BP was introduced by nB at low engine speed, but iB at high engine speed (i.e., one should avoid such speeds when using nB and iB blends). Similarly, the lowest Tq was presented by nBE at low speed, but iBE at high speed; the lowest VE was presented by iB at low speed, but nBE and nB at high speed. Accordingly, the fuel blends performed differently at certain engine speeds. Hence, one should define the engine speed according to the fuel blend and the best performance/emissions needed. Lastly, it is important to highlight that the average values of performance and emissions presented in Figure 5 and Figure 9 were calculated at several intermediate speeds, thus differing from the values calculated in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8.

4. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Five different biofuel blends were compared in this study in terms of engine performance (power, BP, torque, Tq, and volumetric efficiency, VE) and emissions (CO, CO2, and UHC). The biofuels were blended in dual and ternary issues: i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE). The comparisons were carried out at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min), as well as averaged across intermediate speeds. The results showed that the lowest BP was introduced by nB at low speed, but iB at high speed. The lowest Tq was presented by nBE at low speed, but iBE at high speed. The lowest VE was presented by iB at low speed, but nBE and nB at high speed. Across all speeds, the greatest Bp, Tq, and VE were presented by E blends.
In conclusion, the fuel blend performance was significantly influenced by engine speeds. On average, the four fuel blends (nB, iB, nBE, and iBE) showed lower levels of engine performance (BP, Tq, and VE) than pure gasoline, whereas the E blend showed higher performance than pure gasoline. The E blend also presented the highest CO2 emissions among all blends. Both nB and iB showed the lowest CO2 and the highest CO emissions. The E blends presented the lowest CO emissions, while iB and nBE introduced the highest and the lowest UHC emissions, respectively. The iBE ternary blends presented the same level of CO, UHC, and CO2 emissions, whereas all other blends showed different levels of emissions. Additionally, all blends showed lower emissions (CO, UHC, and CO2) than pure gasoline except for E (for CO2). Both nB and iB were subjected to incomplete combustion and, in turn, emitted low emissions. On the other hand, ternary blends underwent more complete combustion than the nB and iB dual blends. In summary, to obtain low CO emissions from the engine, one should use E dual blends. However, if the application of iB and nB dual blends is compulsort, one should consider introducing E (i.e., using nBE and iBE ternary blends). If interested in great BP and Tq, one should avoid using nBE (lowest BP and Tq), instead applying E blends. Lastly, more biofuel blends should be compared in the future to recommend the best in terms of overall performance.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Taif University researchers supporting project number (TURSP-2020/40), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations/Nomenclatures

COCarbon monoxide
CO2Carbon dioxide
UHCUnburned hydrocarbon
BPBrake power
TqEngine torque
VEVolumetric efficiency
iBi-Butanol–gasoline blend
nBn-Butanol– gasoline blend
EBio-ethanol–gasoline blend
nBEn-Butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline blend
iBEi-Butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline blend

References

  1. Elfasakhany, A.; Klason, T.; Bai, X.S. Modeling of Pulverised Wood Combustion Using a Functional Group Model. Combust. Theory Model. 2008, 12, 883–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Elfasakhany, A.; Tao, L.; Espenas, B.; Larfeldt, J.; Bai, X.S. Pulverised Wood Combustion in a Vertical Furnace: Experimental and Computational Analyses. Appl. Energy 2013, 112, 454–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Elfasakhany, A. Powder biomass fast pyrolysis as in combustion conditions: Numerical prediction and validation. Renew. Energy Focus 2018, 27, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Elfasakhany, A.; Bai, X.S. Numerical and experimental studies of irregular-shape biomass particle motions in turbulent flows. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2019, 22, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Elfasakhany, A. The Effects of Ethanol-Gasoline Blends on Performance and Exhaust Emission Characteristics of Spark Ignition Engines. Int. J. Automot. Eng. 2014, 4, 608–620. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheng, S.; Kang, D.; Fridlyand, A.; Goldsborough, S.S.; Vuilleumier, D. Autoignition behavior of gasoline/ethanol blends at engine-relevant conditions. Combust. Flame 2020, 216, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Elfasakhany, A. Experimental study on emissions and performance of an internal combustion engine fueled with gasoline and gasoline/n-butanol blends. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 88, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Han, D.; Fan, Y.; Sun, Z.; Nour, M.; Li, X. Combustion and emissions of isomeric butanol/gasoline surrogates blends on an optical GDI engine. Fuel 2020, 27215, 117690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Elfasakhany, A. Experimental investigation on SI engine using gasoline and a hybrid iso-butanol/gasoline fuel. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 95, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhao, L.; Wang, D.; Qi, W. Comparative study on air dilution and hydrogen-enriched air dilution employed in a SI engine fueled with iso-butanol-gasoline. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 10895–10905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Isam, E.Y.; Saleh, A.M. Butanol-gasoline blends impact on performance and exhaust emissions of a four stroke spark ignition engine. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2023, 41, 102612. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hosseini, H.; Hajialimohammadi, A.; Gavzan, I.J.; Hajimousa, M.A. Numerical and experimental investigation on the effect of using blended gasoline-ethanol fuel on the performance and the emissions of the bi-fuel Iranian national engine. Fuel 2023, 337, 127252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Qadiri, U. Computational Investigations on MPFI Engine Fueled Blended Ethanol, H2O based Micro-Emulsions, and Conventional Gasoline. Environ. Adv. 2023; 100367, (in press). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mortadha, K.M.; Hyder, H.B.; Zaid, M.H.A.-D.; Zaid, S.K.; Mudhaffar, S.A.-Z. Effect of ethanol-gasoline blends on SI engine performance and emissions. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2021, 25, 100891. [Google Scholar]
  15. Iodice, P.; Amoresano, A.; Langella, G. A review on the effects of ethanol/gasoline fuel blends on NOX emissions in spark-ignition engines. Biofuel Res. J. 2021, 8, 1465–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dehhaghi, M.; Panahi, H.K.S.; Aghbashlo, M.; Lam, S.S.; Tabatabaei, M. The effects of nanoadditives on the performance and emission characteristics of spark-ignition gasoline engines: A critical review with a focus on health impacts. Energy 2021, 225, 120259. [Google Scholar]
  17. Nazzal, T. Experimental study of gasoline –Alcohol blends on performance of internal combustion engine. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 2011, 52, 16–22. [Google Scholar]
  18. Elfasakhany, A. Investigations on the effects of ethanol-methanol-gasoline blends in a spark-ignition engine: Performance and emissions analysis. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2015, 18, 713–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Balaji, D.; Govindarajan, P.; Venkatesan, J. Influence of isobutanol blend in spark ignition engine performance operated with gasoline and ethanol. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2010, 2, 2859–2868. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sileghem, L.; Coppens, A.; Casier, B.; Vancoillie, J.; Verhelst, S. Performance and emissions of iso-stoichiometric ternary GEM blends on a production SI engine. Fuel 2014, 117, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Elfasakhany, A.; Mahrous, A.-F. Performance and emissions assessment of n-butanol–methanol–gasoline blends as a fuel in spark-ignition engines. Alex. Eng. J. 2016, 55, 3015–3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Turner, J.W.G.; Pearson, R.J.; Dekker, E.; Iosefa, B.; Johansson, K.; Bergstom, K. Extending the role of alcohols as transport fuels using iso-stoichiometric ternary blends of gasoline, ethanol and methanol. Appl. Energy 2013, 102, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Andersen, V.F.; Anderson, J.E.; Wallington, T.J.; Nielsen, O.J. Vapor pressures of alcohol–gasoline blends. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 3647–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Elfasakhany, A. Exhaust emissions and performance of ternary iso-butanol–bio-methanol–gasoline and n-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline fuel blends in spark-ignition engines: Assessment and comparison. Energy 2018, 158, 830–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Elfasakhany, A. Experimental study of dual n-butanol and iso-butanol additives on spark-ignition engine performance and emissions. Fuel 2016, 163, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Siwale, L.; Kristóf, L.; Bereczky, A.; Mbarawa, M.; Kolesnikov, A. Performance, combustion and emission characteristics of n-butanol additive in methanol–gasoline blend fired in a naturally-aspirated spark ignition engine. Fuel Process. Technol. 2014, 118, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Elfasakhany, A. Benefits and drawbacks on the use biofuels in spark ignition engines. In Mauritius; LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing: Saarland, Germany, 2017; ISBN 978-620-2-05720-2. [Google Scholar]
  28. Elfasakhany, A. Biofuels in Automobiles: Advantages and Disadvantages: A Review. Curr. Altern. Energy 2019, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Elfasakhany, A. Gasoline engine fueled with bioethanol-bio-acetone-gasoline blends: Performance and emissions exploration. Fuel 2020, 274, 117825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Elfasakhany, A. Investigation on performance and emissions characteristics of an internal combustion engine fuelled with petroleum gasoline and a hybrid methanol–gasoline fuel. Int. J. Eng. Technol. (IJET-IJENS) 2013, 13, 24–43. [Google Scholar]
  31. Elfasakhany, A. Investigations on performance and pollutant emissions of spark-ignition engines fueled with n-butanol-, iso-butanol-, ethanol-, methanol-, and acetone-gasoline blends: A comparative study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 71, 404–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Elfasakhany, A. Alcohols as Fuels in Spark Ignition Engines: Second Blended Generation; LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing: Saarland, Germany, 2017; ISBN 978-3-659-97691-9. [Google Scholar]
  33. Elfasakhany, A. Performance and emissions analysis on using acetone-gasoline fuel blends in spark ignition engine. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2016, 19, 1224–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Elfasakhany, A. State of Art of Using Biofuels in Spark Ignition Engines. Energies 2021, 14, 779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Elfasakhany, A. Comparisons of Using Ternary and Dual Gasoline-Alcohol Blends in Performance and Releases of SI Engines. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2021, 46, 7495–7508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Deng, B.; Yang, J.; Zhang, D.; Feng, R.; Fu, J.; Liu, J.; Li, K.; Liu, X. The challenges and strategies of butanol application in conventional engines: The sensitivity study of ignition and valve timing. Appl. Energy 2013, 108, 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wallner, T.; Miers, S.A.; McConnell, S. A comparison of ethanol and butanol as oxygenates using a direct-injection, spark-ignition engine. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 2009, 131, 032802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Irimescu, A. Performance and fuel conversion efficiency of a spark ignition engine fueled with iso-butanol. Appl. Energy 2012, 96, 477–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhou, N.; Huo, M.; Wu, H.; Nithyanandan, K.; Lee, C.F.; Wang, Q. Low temperature spray combustion of acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) and diesel blends. Appl. Energy 2014, 117, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lapuerta, M.; Contreras, R.G.; Fernandez, J.C.; Dorado, M.P. Stability, lubricity, viscosity, and cold-flow properties of alcohol-diesel blends. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 4497–4502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Elfasakhany, A. Dual and Ternary Biofuel Blends for Desalination Process: Emissions and Heat Recovered Assessment. Energies 2021, 14, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Processes 11 01264 g001 550
Figure 1. Experimental setup showing engine (bottom) and gas analyzer (top).
Figure 1. Experimental setup showing engine (bottom) and gas analyzer (top).
Processes 11 01264 g001
Processes 11 01264 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparison of brake power (BP) for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min).
Figure 2. Comparison of brake power (BP) for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min).
Processes 11 01264 g002
Processes 11 01264 g003 550
Figure 3. Comparison of engine torque (Tq) for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min).
Figure 3. Comparison of engine torque (Tq) for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min).
Processes 11 01264 g003
Processes 11 01264 g004 550
Figure 4. Comparison of volumetric efficiency (VE) for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min).
Figure 4. Comparison of volumetric efficiency (VE) for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min).
Processes 11 01264 g004
Processes 11 01264 g005 550
Figure 5. Comparison of average brake power (BP), engine torque (Tq), and volumetric efficiency (VE) for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline).
Figure 5. Comparison of average brake power (BP), engine torque (Tq), and volumetric efficiency (VE) for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline).
Processes 11 01264 g005
Processes 11 01264 g006 550
Figure 6. Comparison of CO emissions for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min).
Figure 6. Comparison of CO emissions for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min).
Processes 11 01264 g006
Processes 11 01264 g007 550
Figure 7. Comparison of UHC emissions for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min).
Figure 7. Comparison of UHC emissions for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min).
Processes 11 01264 g007
Processes 11 01264 g008 550
Figure 8. Comparison of CO2 emissions for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min).
Figure 8. Comparison of CO2 emissions for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline), at two engine speeds (2500 and 3500 rpm/min).
Processes 11 01264 g008
Processes 11 01264 g009 550
Figure 9. Comparison of average CO, UHC, and CO2 emissions for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline).
Figure 9. Comparison of average CO, UHC, and CO2 emissions for i-butanol (iB), n-butanol (nB), bio-ethanol (E), n-butanol–bio-ethanol (nBE), and i-butanol–bio-ethanol–gasoline (iBE) blends, as well as pure gasoline (baseline).
Processes 11 01264 g009
Table
Table 1. Gasoline engine and pollutant gas analyzer specifications [33,34,35].
Table 1. Gasoline engine and pollutant gas analyzer specifications [33,34,35].
Gas AnalyzerEngine
Weight9 kgTypeSI (spark ignition)
Warm-up period10 minNo. of cylinders1
Exhaust gas temp. range5–45 °CNo. of valves2
Apparatus heating range0−130 °C, resolution ±1 °CBore (mm)65.1
Voltage230 V (+10%/−15%)Stroke (mm)44.4
Frequency50 ± 1 HzCompression ratio7:1
Power consumptionMax. 45 VADisplacement (cm3)147.7
Pollutant rangeCO 0–10 vol.%
CO2 0–20 vol.%
UHC 0–2000 ppm 		Maximum power (kW)1.5
Weight17 kg
Table
Table 2. Fuel properties [36,37,38,39,40].
Table 2. Fuel properties [36,37,38,39,40].
FuelGasolineBio-Ethanoli-Butanoln-Butanol
Property
FormulaC8H15C2H6OC4H10OC4H10O
C, H, O value (wt.%)86, 14, 052, 13, 3565, 13.5, 21.565, 13.5, 21.5
LHV (MJ/kg)43.52733.333.1
Heat of evap. (kJ/kg)223.2725.4474.3582
Stoich. A/F ratio14.6911.111.2
Oxygen wt.%0.034.721.621.6
Density (kg/m3)760790802810
P sat. at 38 °C (kPa)3113.82.32.27
Flash temp. (°C)−45 to −3821.12835
Ignition temp. (°C)420434415385
Boiling temp. (°C)25–21578.4108117.7
Solubility in water (mL/100 mL H2O)<0.1Fully miscible10.67.7
Vapor toxicityModerate irritantToxic even in small dosesModerate irritantModerate irritant
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Elfasakhany, A. Comparative Analysis of the Engine Performance and Emissions Characteristics Powered by Various Ethanol–Butanol–Gasoline Blends. Processes 2023, 11, 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11041264

AMA Style

Elfasakhany A. Comparative Analysis of the Engine Performance and Emissions Characteristics Powered by Various Ethanol–Butanol–Gasoline Blends. Processes. 2023; 11(4):1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11041264

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elfasakhany, Ashraf. 2023. "Comparative Analysis of the Engine Performance and Emissions Characteristics Powered by Various Ethanol–Butanol–Gasoline Blends" Processes 11, no. 4: 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11041264

APA Style

Elfasakhany, A. (2023). Comparative Analysis of the Engine Performance and Emissions Characteristics Powered by Various Ethanol–Butanol–Gasoline Blends. Processes, 11(4), 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11041264

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop