Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile

Engineering
http://pid.sagepub.com/

Properties, performance, and emissions of methanol-gasoline blends in a spark ignition engine

D H Qi, Sh Q Liu, Ch H Zhang and Y Zh Bian
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 2005 219: 405
DOI: 10.1243/095440705X6659
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://pid.sagepub.com/content/219/3/405

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering
can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://pid.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://pid.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://pid.sagepub.com/content/219/3/405.refs.html

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on June 28, 2011

405

Properties, performance, and emissions of

methanolgasoline blends in a spark ignition engine
D H Qi1*, Sh Q Liu1, J C Liu1, Ch H Zhang2, and Y Zh Bian1
1Institute of Transportation, Changan University, Shaanxi Province, Peoples Republic of China
2School of Automobile, Changan University, Xian, Peoples Republic of China
The manuscript was received on 13 May 2004 and was accepted after revision for publication on 23 September 2004.
DOI: 10.1243/095440705X6659

Abstract: One of the major problems for the successful application of a methanolgasoline blend as
a motor fuel was the realization of a stable homogeneous liquid phase. This paper studied the eect
of ethanol as the co-solvent in the methanolgasoline blend in order to overcome this problem. In
this way, not only was the phase separation problem solved but the methanol ratio in the blend was
also increased. The critical phase separation temperature (CPST) of the methanolgasoline blend
increased with increasing water content in the blend, and the addition of ethanol caused the CPST
to decrease. M10 (gasoline containing 8.5 vol % methanol and 1.5 vol % ethanol) and M25 (gasoline
containing 19 vol % methanol and 6 vol % ethanol) were exploited to test the performance, the fuel
consumption, and the exhaust emissions. The results show that the specic fuel consumption of M10
was almost the same as that of gasoline, but that of M25 was higher for all engine speeds at full load.
The specic energy consumption of gasoline was higher than that of blends for all engine speeds at
full load and that of M25 was lower under low load at a xed engine speed. The engine torque and
power output were observed to be lower than those of gasoline, and it was found that the higher the
volume fraction of methanol in blend, the larger the reduction. The hydrocarbon emission concentration of M25 was higher and the nitrogen oxides emission concentration was lower than those of
gasoline and M10 for all engine loads. Under low and moderate loads, the carbon monoxide concentration of gasoline was higher than that of methanolgasoline blends, but under high loads that of
M25 was higher.
Keywords: methanolgasoline blends, spark ignition engine, ethanol, critical phase separation
temperature (CPST), exhaust emissions

1 INTRODUCTION
All kinds of vehicle engines work with fuels produced from petrol. Depletion of fossil fuels and
environmental considerations have led engineers and
scientists to anticipate the need to develop a clean,
renewable, and sustainable energy system. The energy
crisis has created an incentive to study and evaluate
oxygenated fuels, such as methanol and ethanol, as
alternative fuels in spark ignition (SI) engines. Since
methanol and ethanol can be fermented and distilled
from biomasses, they can be considered as renewable
energy [1]. However, when they are used in direct
injection diesel engines, ignition assistance, typied
* Corresponding author: Institute of Transportation, School
of Automobile, Changan University, Changan Road, Xian,
Shaanxi Province, Peoples Republic of China. email: qiooooo@
hotmail.com

D09604 IMechE 2005

by a glow-plug, is required owing to their low cetane

number. As an alternative fuel for spark ignition
engines, they have some advantages over gasoline,
such as better anti-knock characteristics and reduction
of carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons
(UHC) emissions.
Since using gasolineoxygenate blends can ease
the air pollution and the depletion of petroleum fuels
simultaneously, much research has been devoted to
study the eect of these alternative fuels on the performance and pollutant emissions of an engine. Rice
et al. [2] studied exhaust emissions from a Chrysler
2.2 L engine running on gasolinebutanol/ethanol/
methanol (20 per cent by volume alcohol) at three
operating conditions. CO emissions for alcohol fuels
relative to gasoline at a given airfuel ratio were
decreased due to the leaning eect related to the
lower stoichiometric airfuel value for alcohols. This
eect, coupled with a lower combustion temperature
Proc. IMechE. Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on June 28, 2011

406

D H Qi, Sh Q Liu, J C Liu, Ch H Zhang, and Y Zh Bian

for alcohol blends, also accounted for a modest

lowering of nitrogen oxides (NO ) emissions when
x
using alcohols. In contrast, unburned fuel emissions
were higher for alcohol-containing fuels than for
gasoline at intermediate loads, but were almost equal
or lower at high loads. Reuter et al. [3] estimated the
eect of oxygenate addition in gasoline on exhaust
and evaporative emissions. The fuels used were
gasoline containing 10 vol % ethanol or 15 vol %
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) or 17 vol % ethyl
tertiary butyl ether (ETBE). The addition of oxygenates decreased exhaust mass emissions of total
hydrocarbons by 5.4 per cent and CO emissions
by 12.5 per cent. NO emissions were increased by
x
oxygenates by 4.8 per cent. Benzene exhaust mass
emissions were reduced by 10.5 per cent with the
oxygenated fuels while acetaldehyde emissions were
increased for ethanol and ETBE blends. Palmer [4]
reported that all oxygenated blends gave a better antiknock performance during low-speed acceleration
than hydrocarbon fuels of the same octane range.
Taljaard et al. [5] studied the eect of oxygenate
in gasoline on exhaust emission and performance in
a single-cylinder, four-stroke SI engine. They concluded that oxygenates signicantly decreased the
CO, NO and HC emissions at the stoichiometric air
x
fuel ratio. Bata et al. [6] studied dierent blend rates
of ethanol/gasoline fuels in engines, and found that
the ethanol could reduce the CO and UHC emissions
to some degree. The reduction of CO emission is
apparently caused by the wide ammability and oxygenated characteristic of ethanol. However, studies
by Chao et al. [7] and Rideout et al. [8] pointed out
that using ethanolgasoline blended fuels increases
the emission of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and
acetone by 5.1213.8 times those from gasoline.
Although the emission of aldehyde will increase when

ethanol is used as a fuel, the damage to the environment by the emitted aldehyde is far less than that by
the polynuclear aromatics emitted from burning
gasoline. Therefore, a higher percentage of alcohol
in blended fuel can make the air quality better in
comparison to gasoline [9].
The objective of the present paper is to investigate
the solvability of gasoline and methanol by using
ethanol as a co-solvent, the eect of the water content in blend on the phase separation temperature,
and the solution and expansion behaviour of the
blend on the rubber usually used in a vehicle. Lastly,
the paper compares the performance, the fuel consumption, and the exhaust emissions of blends and
gasoline at speed characteristics of full load and at
load characteristics respectively.

2 FUEL PROPERTIES
Methanol (CH OH) is a pure substance. It contains
3
an oxygen atom, which can be viewed as partially
oxidized hydrocarbons. The properties of the fuels
are presented in Table 1. For the combustion characteristics, the auto-ignition temperature and ash
point of methanol are higher than those of gasoline,
which make it safer for transportation and storage.
The latent heat of evaporation is 3.5 times higher
than that of gasoline, which makes the temperature
of the intake manifold lower and increases the
volumetric eciency. The heating value is also lower
than that of gasoline. Therefore, it needs 2.2 times
more methanol to achieve the same energy output.
Moreover, the stoichiometric airfuel ratio (AFR) of
methanol is about a half that of gasoline; hence the
required amount of air for complete combustion is
less.

Table 1 Fuel properties of gasoline, methanol, and ethanol

Property

Gasoline

Methanol

Ethanol

Chemical formula
Molecular weight
Lower heating value (MJ/kg)
Stoichiometric AFR (kg/kg)
Density (kg/m3)
Boiling point (C at 1 atm)
Self-ignition temperature (C)
Latent heat of evaporation (kJ/kg)
Stoichiometric mixture heating value (kJ/m3 atm at 20 C)
Octane
RON
MON
Carbon (wt %)
Oxygen (wt %)
Hydrogen (wt %)

C C
4 12
95120
44
14.8
0.700.75
25215
300400
310320
3750

CH OH
3
32
20.26
6.52
0.795
65
500
1100
3557

C H OH
2 5
46
27
9.05
0.79
78
420
862
3660

90
8189
85.5
0
14.5

110
92
37.5
12.5
50

106
89
52.2
13
34.8

Proc. IMechE. Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on June 28, 2011

D09604 IMechE 2005

Emissions of methanolgasoline blends in a SI engine

407

Table 2 Percentage of each composition in blend

Fuel name

M5

M10

M20

M25

M30

M35

M40

M50

M60

M70

Gasoline (RON70) (vol %)

Methanol (vol %)
Ethanol (vol %)

95
5
0

90
8.5
1.5

80
15
5

75
19
6

70
23
7

65
27
8

60
30
10

50
40
10

40
52
8

30
70
0

Table 3 Properties of blends fuel

3 PHASE SEPARATION
Methanol is completely miscible with water in all
proportions, while gasoline and water are immiscible.
Phase separation may be a problem with methanol
gasoline blends, even at moderate temperature. To
eliminate phase separation, all the blends were stored
at temperatures above 15 C at all times. In order
to reduce the phase separation temperature, higher
aliphatic alcohols such as tertiary butyl alcohol,
benzyl alcohol, cyclohexanol, or toluene are usually
added to the blends.
The miscibility of ethanolgasoline blends is better
than that of methanolgasoline blends, so ethanol
may operate as a co-solvent of methanolgasoline
with an octane number of 70 blends. Figure 1 shows
the limited quantity (by volume) of ethanol, with
which the methanolgasoline (RON70) blend may
remain stable in dierent proportions by volume at
the temperature of 15 C. Table 2 gives the percentage of each composition and denes the name of
blend in terms of the total volume fraction of alcohol
in the blend. At the phase separation, gasoline, which
contains less than 5 per cent or more than 70 per cent
methanol by volume, is said to be more stable, and
when the volume fraction of methanol in blend is
between 30 and 40 per cent, more ethanol is required
as the co-solvent to prevent phase separation of
the blend. In general, the solvability of gasoline in
methanol is greater than that of methanol in gasoline.
Three test fuels were used in this study. The main
properties are given in Table 3. The rst fuel was

Fig. 1 Volume fraction of methanol and ethanol in

blends
D09604 IMechE 2005

Property

M10

M25

Gasoline
(RON90)

Lower heating value (MJ/kg)

Stoichiometric AFR (kg/kg)
Latent heat of evaporation (kJ/kg)
Cetane number (RON)

41.61
13.97
398
101

38.23
12.8
507
102

44
14.8
310320
90

unleaded gasoline without any oxygenated additives,

with an octane number of 90, while the blend fuels
are M10 and M25, noted in Table 2. Ethanol addition
in the blend resulted in an increase in research octane
number (RON) and Reid vapour pressure (RVP) of
the fuel. The increase in the RVP of the blend is
an indication of increased evaporative emissions,
although such measurements were not conducted in
this study.
A phase separation is observed in the gasoline
oxygenate blend when the amount of water present
in the blend is over a certain limit. Figure 2 shows
that the critical phase separation temperature (CPST)
of methanolgasoline increases with the amount
of water present in the blend, and the addition of
ethanol can decrease the CPST. When the content
of water in the blend is 0.2 per cent (by volume), the
CPST of M35 is 4 C lower than that of M30, 9 C of
M25, and 40 C of M10. As pointed out, to be able to
use methanolgasoline blends as a motor fuel, the
blends must be stable and a separation of phases
should not occur. In gasoline-oxygenated fuelwater
systems, the phase separation depends on the
methanol, ethanol, and water content of the blend,
the environmental temperature, and the composition
of gasoline.

Fig. 2 Eect of water content in blend on the phase

separation temperature
Proc. IMechE. Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on June 28, 2011

408

D H Qi, Sh Q Liu, J C Liu, Ch H Zhang, and Y Zh Bian

Methanol is an organic solvent and can react with

many rubbers to raise their mass, showing so-called
solution and expansion behaviour, which can cause
a jam in the fuel pipe. Figure 3 shows the experiment
results of the drenching test of rubber in three
dierent fuels (gasoline, M25, and M30). The rubber
was drenched in fuels and weighed every day for
a month. From Fig. 3 it can be seen that the mass
growth rate of rubber only varies slightly for each
fuel, but the mass growth rate in methanolgasoline
blend is evidently larger than that in pure gasoline.
The maximum rate is 0.385 per cent in M30, 0.318
per cent in M25, and 0.191 per cent in pure gasoline.
Therefore, it is advisable to use uorocarbon rubber
as a replacement for rubber, which is usually used
in a vehicle [10].

4 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND

PROCEDURE

4.2 Procedures
The engine was started and allowed to warm up for
a period of 2030 min. The required engine load
was obtained through dynamometer control. Before
running the engine with a new fuel blend, it was
allowed to run for a sucient time to consume the
remaining fuel from the previous experiment. The
variables that were continuously measured include
engine speed, torque, time required to consume
30 cm3 of blend, and HC, CO, and NO emissions.
x
The equivalent fuel consumption per hour for the
blend is calculated on the basis of an equal heat value
with gasoline according to
mH
ub
H
ug
m
b= 103
p

m=
e

m
b = e 103
e
p

4.1 Engine and equipment

Experimental apparatus included three major systems, i.e. the engine system, the power measurement
system, and the exhaust measurement system. The
engine system used in this experiment, whose technical data are shown in Table 4, was a commercial
engine. The engine output power was metered by
the electricity vortex dynamometer. In the experiments, the concentrations of HC, CO, and NO in the
x
exhaust gas were measured on-line by the analyser
of Digas 4000 made in Austria.

E =b H 103
e
e
ug
where m is the equivalent fuel consumption per
e
hour (kg/h), m is the fuel consumption per hour
(kg/h), H is the low heating value of blend (MJ/kg),
ub
H is the low heating value of gasoline (MJ/kg), b is
ug
the specic fuel consumption (g/kW h), b is the
e
equivalent specic fuel consumption (g/kW h), p is
the power output (kW) and E is the specic energy
e
consumption (MJ/kW h).

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The fuel supply system did not have any modication on the carburettor for dierent fuels in the
experiments. Therefore the airfuel ratios might vary
for dierent fuels, but the performance and emissions
dierences can be examined for various blends using
the same fuel supply system.
5.1 Equivalent fuel consumption per stroke
Fig. 3 Comparison of solution and expansion behaviour

Table 4 Engine specications

Bore (mm)
Stroke (mm)
Displacement (cm3)
Compression ratio
Combustion chamber
Rated power/speed

102
114
5560
7.4 : 1
Semi-cuneiform type
99.3 kW/3000 r/min

Figure 4 shows the eect of blends on the equivalent

fuel consumption per stroke of engine at speed characteristics of full load. It can be seen that, in comparison to RON90 unleaded gasoline, the equivalent
fuel consumptions per stroke of M10 is lower, and
that of M25 is lowest, for all engine speeds. The
reason is that the low heating values of M10 and M25
are 95 and 87 per cent that of gasoline respectively,
and no modication is made to the carburettor. The
amount of fuel introduced into the engine cylinder

Proc. IMechE. Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on June 28, 2011

D09604 IMechE 2005

Emissions of methanolgasoline blends in a SI engine

409

characteristics of 1800 r/min, the specic fuel consumption remains almost the same for gasoline and
M10, but that of M25 is insensitive to loads and is
higher than the other two fuels at moderate and
high loads. When the brake mean eective pressure
(b.m.e.p.) is 0.41 MPa, the specic fuel consumption
of M25 is the highest. This eect is attributed to the
following factors:

Fig. 4 Comparison of equivalent fuel consumption per

stroke (speed characteristics of full load)

for a given desired fuel energy input has to be greater

with methanolgasoline blends, so the fuel delivery
amount for blends must be increased to reach the
same power output as gasoline.
5.2 Specic fuel consumption
Figures 5 and 6 give the experimental results of the
engine specic fuel consumption for M10, M25, and
gasoline. The gures show clearly that the specic
fuel consumption of M10 with an engine speed of
full load is almost similar to that of gasoline, but for
M25 the specic fuel consumption is higher. At load

Fig. 5 Comparison of specic fuel consumption (speed

characteristics of full load)

Fig. 6 Comparison of specic fuel consumption (load

characteristics at 1800 r/min)
D09604 IMechE 2005

1. The low heating value per unit mass of methanol

is distinctly lower than that of gasoline, so the
higher the proportion of methanol in the blend,
the lower the low heating value of the blends.
2. The stoichiometric airfuel ratio of methanol is
lower than that of gasoline, which results in a
decrease in the stoichiometric airfuel ratio of the
blends and an increase in the actual airfuel ratio
of the blends as a result of the oxygen content
in methanol. The stoichiometric airfuel ratio of
M25 is 86 per cent that of gasoline and the
airM25 ratio is too large at a b.m.e.p. of 0.41 MPa,
resulting in a sharp rise in specic fuel consumption for this operation condition. With the load
continuously increasing, the specic fuel consumption decreases due to carburettor thickening
of the airfuel mixture.
5.3 Specic energy consumption
Owing to the dierence between the low heating
values of fuels, fuel consumption should be analysed
in terms of the amount of energy input. Figures 7
and 8 show the specic energy consumption at the
speed characteristics of full load and at load characteristics of 1800 r/min respectively. It can be seen
from the gures that the specic energy consumption of gasoline is evidently higher than those of M10
and M25 for all engine speeds, and the specic
energy consumption of gasoline and M10 with the
load are similar, while M25 is dierent. The reasons
are believed to be that:

Fig. 7 Comparison of specic energy consumption

(speed characteristics of full load)
Proc. IMechE. Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on June 28, 2011

410

D H Qi, Sh Q Liu, J C Liu, Ch H Zhang, and Y Zh Bian

5.5 Exhaust emissions

Fig. 8 Comparison of specic energy consumption

(load characteristics at 1800 r/min)

1. The volumetric eciency increase as the volume

percentage of methanol in the blends increases
due to the higher latent heat of evaporation of
methanol, which results in a decrease in the charge
temperature at the end of the induction process.
2. The oxygen content in methanol can improve the
combustion process.
3. The airfuel ratio increases, which reduces the
heat transfer to the cylinder walls (heat losses) due
to incomplete combustion.
5.4 Power output
Figures 9 and 10 give the eect of blends on the
power output and torque at the speed characteristics
of full load. It can be seen from the gures that the
power output and torque of blends are lower than
those of gasoline for all engine speeds. The maximum power of M10 and M25 are 2.3 and 6.8 per
cent lower respectively than that of gasoline, and
the maximum torque of the two blends are 2.1 and
5.7 per cent lower. From the previous discussion, the
fuel consumption per stroke of gasoline is largest
and that of M25 is lowest, causing the airM25 ratio
to increase and the heating value of the mixture to
decrease. Therefore the excess air coecient increases,
resulting in a loss of power.

Fig. 9 Comparison of power output

Figure 11 shows the idling emissions for the three

fuels. It can be seen from the gure that M25 shows
the higher value of hydrocarbon emissions than
gasoline and M10. Gasoline gives the highest value of
carbon monoxide emissions and the lowest value
of carbon dioxide, with those of the other blends
remaining almost the same. Gasoline shows the
highest value of NO emissions, with M10 giving
x
the second highest value and M25 the lowest.
Figure 12 shows clearly that the HC emissions concentration with the load remain almost the same for
gasoline and M10, but for M25 the HC emissions
concentration increases and then decreases; at a
b.m.e.p. of 0.41 MPa, the value is highest. The HC
emissions of M10 are slightly lower than that of gasoline, with that of M25 higher. The low production
of hydrocarbons in the cylinder and high oxidation of
hydrocarbons in post-ame are considered to be the
main reasons for the low exhaust of hydrocarbons
when operating on oxygenated fuels. In addition,
the oxygenated fuel is considered to produce low
unburned hydrocarbons in crevices, deposits, and
the lubricating oil layer [11]. This phenomenon is
probably due to the high value of latent heat of
evaporation of methanol; i.e. for a large proportion
of blending, the great temperature drop of the
cylinder gas will slow down the ame propagation
speed. Although the oxygen in a blend is increased,
the post-ame oxidation of unburned hydrocarbon
will decrease because of this temperature drop. For
M10, the inuence of oxidation enhancement is larger
than that of the temperature drop, and vice versa.
The eect of the temperature drop is the dominant
factor for M25.
Figure 13 gives the experimental results of the CO
emission concentration with the load for gasoline
and blends. It can be seen that for all fuels the CO
emission will decrease and then increase with the
increase of the load. Under low and moderate loads,
the CO emission concentration of gasoline is higher
than those of the blends, but at high load the CO
emission concentration of M25 is higher. This is due
to an improvement in the combustion process as a
result of the oxygen content in methanol. When
methanol is added to the blended fuel, it can provide
more oxygen for the combustion process and leads
to the so-called leaning eect. Owing to the leaning
eect, CO emission will decrease. From the previous
discussion, it can be seen that the temperature drop
and the stoichiometric airfuel ratio reduction will
result in an increase in CO emission concentration
of M25 at high load.

Proc. IMechE. Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on June 28, 2011

D09604 IMechE 2005

Emissions of methanolgasoline blends in a SI engine

411

Fig. 10 Comparison of torque

Fig. 13 Comparison of carbon monoxide emissions

(load characteristics at 1800 r/min)

Fig. 11 Comparison of emissions (idling operation

condition)

Fig. 14 Comparison of nitrogen oxides emissions (load

characteristics at 1800 r/min)

Fig. 12 Comparison of hydrocarbon emissions (load

characteristics at 1800 r/min)

Figure 14 gives the eect of blends in gasoline on

the NO emissions. It can be seen from the gure
x
that the NO emission concentration of M25 is lower
x
than that of M10 and gasoline for all engine loads.
D09604 IMechE 2005

The reason is attributed to the temperature drop

related to the higher latent heat of evaporation of
methanol.

6 CONCLUSION
From the results of the study, the following conclusions can be deduced:
Proc. IMechE. Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on June 28, 2011

412

D H Qi, Sh Q Liu, J C Liu, Ch H Zhang, and Y Zh Bian

1. Using ethanol as a co-solvent in the methanol

gasoline blend, the phase separation problem was
solved and the methanol ratio in the blend was
increased.
2. Due to the water content in the blends, the phase
separation temperature increases. The greater
the amount of water in the blends, the higher the
phase separation temperature.
3. The inuence of the solution and expansion
behaviour on rubber for M25 and M30 is stronger
than that for pure gasoline. The higher the volume
fraction of methanol in the blend, the stronger is
the inuence.
4. The maximum power of M10 and M25 reduce
by about 2.3 and 6.8 per cent and the maximum
torque of the two blends reduce by about 2.1 and
5.7 per cent respectively, compared to that of
gasoline.
5. The specic fuel consumption of M25 is higher
than those of M10 and gasoline, but the specic
energy consumption of gasoline is higher than that
of M10 and M25 at the speed characteristics of
full load. At the load characteristics of 1800 r/min,
under high and moderate loads the specic fuel
consumption of M25 is higher and under low load
the specic energy consumption of M25 is lower.
6. Under an idling operation condition, M25 gives
the highest value of hydrocarbon emissions and
carbon dioxide, while gasoline gives the highest
value of carbon monoxide emissions and NO
x
emissions.
7. The HC emission concentration of M10 is slightly
lower than that of gasoline at load characteristics
of 1800 r/min and that of M25 is higher, especially
under moderate load. Under low and moderate
loads, the CO emission concentration of gasoline
is highest, but under high load that of M25 is
highest. The NO emission concentration of M25
x
is remarkably lower than that of gasoline and M10
for all engine loads.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to express their deep thanks
to the professional colleagues for their technical
contributions to this work.

REFERENCES
1 Hsieh, W.-D., Chen, R.-H., Wu, T.-L., and Lin, T.-H.
Engine performance and pollutant emission of an
SI engine using ethanolgasoline blended fuels.
Atmospheric Environ., 2002, 36, 403410.
2 Rice, R. W., Sanyal, A. K., Elrod, A. C., and
Bata, R. M. Exhaust gas emissions of butanol,
ethanol, and methanol gasoline blends. J. Engng for
Gas Turbines and Power, 1991, 113, 377381.
3 Reuter, R. M., Benson, J. D., Burns, V. R.,
Gorse, R. A., Hochhauser, A. M., Koehl, W. J.,
Painter, L. J., Rippon, B. H., and Rutherford, J. A.
Eects of oxygenated fuels and RVP on automotive
emissions Fauto/oil quality improvement program.
SAE technical paper 920326, pp. 391412.
4 Palmer, F. H. Vehicle performance of gasoline
containing oxygenates. In IMechE International
Conference on Petroleum Based and Automotive
Applications, London, Conference Publications, 1986,
pp. 3346 (Mechanical Engineering Publications,
London).
5 Taljaard, H. C., Jaardaan, C. F. P., and Both, J. J. The
eect of oxygen content in dierent oxygenates
gasoline blends on performance and emission in
a single cylinder, spark ignition engine. SAE paper
91037, 1991.
6 Bata, R. M., Elond, A. C., and Rice, R. W. Emissions
from IC engines fueled with alcoholgasoline
blends: a literature review. Trans. ASME, Energy
Resources Technology, 1989, 111, 421431.
7 Chao, H. R., Lin, T. C., Chao, M. R., Chang, F. H.,
Huang, C. I., and Chen, C. B. Eect of methanol
containing additive on the emission of carbonyl
compounds from a heavy-duty diesel engine.
J. Hazardous Mater., 2000, 13(1), 3954.
8 Rideout, G., Kirshenbiatt, M., and Prakash, C.
Emissions from methanol, ethanol and diesel
powered urban transit buses. SAE paper 942261,
1994.
9 Yuksel, F. and Yuksel, B. The use of ethanolgasoline
blend as a fuel in an SI engine. Renewable Energy,
2004, 29, 11811191.
10 Naegeli, D. W., Lacey, P. I., Alger, M. J., and Endicott,
D. L. Surface corrosion in ethanol fuel pumps. SAE
paper 971648, 1997.
11 Huang, Z., Miao, H. Y., Zhou, L. B., and Jiang, D. M.
Investigation on consumption characteristics and
hydrocarbon emissions of gasoline engine operating
on oxygenated fuel blends. J. Combust. Sci. Technol.
(China), 1999, 5(3), 231239.

Proc. IMechE. Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on June 28, 2011

D09604 IMechE 2005