Renewable Energy 81 (2015) 113e122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Combustion and emissions study on motorcycle engine fueled with

butanol-gasoline blend
Renhua Feng a, Jianqin Fu b, Jing Yang b, *, Yi Wang b, Yangtao Li b, Banglin Deng b,
Jingping Liu b, Daming Zhang c
a

Key Laboratory of Advanced Manufacture Technology for Automobile Parts, Ministry of Education, Chongqing University of Technology,
400054 Chongqing, China
Research Center for Advanced Powertrain Technology, Hunan University, 410082 Changsha, China
c
Department of Industrial Technology, California State University, Fresno, CA 93740, USA
b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 28 October 2014
Accepted 10 March 2015
Available online 28 March 2015

In this paper, experimental studies were conducted on a single cylinder high speed spark ignition (SI)
motorcycle engine under both full load and partial load at 6500 and 8500 rpm with pure gasoline, 30%
and 35% volume butanol-gasoline blends. This study is trying to find out the inuence on combustion
heat release of high speed SI engine by variables including ignition timing, butanol blend ratio and
engine load. The results show that butanol-gasoline blend provides higher knocking resistance by
allowing advance ignition timing in SI engines, which leads to more efficient combustion. With butanol
blend ratio increases, more complete combustion process will achieve with the optimum operating
parameters. With engine load increases, the rates of heat release become faster and ascend in peak value
for both pure gasoline and butanol-gasoline blends. Furthermore, engine performance parameters such
as power, fuel economy and emissions have been compared and analyzed. The results also show that
engine power, torque, brake specic energy consumption, HC, CO and O2 emissions are better than those
of pure gasoline at full load with 35% volume butanol addition, combined with ignition timing optimization. But NOx and CO2 emissions are higher than those of the original level of pure gasoline.
2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords:
Butanol-gasoline blend
Combustion
Emissions
Ignition timing
Blend ratio
Engine load

1. Introduction
In the 21st century, energy crisis and environmental protection
are two of the biggest challenges [1,2]. Due to the shortage of oil
resources and the increasing oil price, it is very important to seek
alternative fuels for internal combustion engine [3]. Biofuels can be
made from agricultural products [4]. Biofuels have been considered
as the alternative fuels in some ways [5]. At present, common
biofuels include methanol, ethanol, butanol, biodiesel, biogas and
biohydrogen [6]. Butanol has been suggested as a future fuel biocomponent [7]. Compared with conventional fuels, butanol has
more excellent fuel properties and environment performance, such
as wildly production sources, more oxygen content and higher heat
of evaporation [8]. As automotive fuel, butanol has more advantages compared to methanol and ethanol, including lower volatility, higher heating value, higher viscosity, less corrosive and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 86 13907481080.

E-mail address: yangjing10@vip.sina.com (J. Yang).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.03.025
0960-1481/ 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

lower auto-ignition temperature [9]. Furthermore, butanol can be

extracted from renewable resources, such as corn fiber [10], wheat
straw [11], distillers dry grains and solubles (DDGS) [12], corn
stover [13], switchgrass, barley straw [14] and other plant materials
[15]. Due to its superior physical and chemical properties, butanol
has become a very competitive biomass-based renewable fuel for
internal combustion engines to substitute or supplement gasoline
[16,17]. Typical properties of gasoline, methanol, ethanol and
butanol [18e22] are shown in Table 1.
There are many researches in butanol utilizations on conventional spark ignition (SI) gasoline engines. Some of them focused on
engine performance, fuel economy and emission characteristics.
Alasfour [23e26] has conducted the pioneer work to study performance and emissions on a single cylinder engine with 30% volume butanol gasoline blend. Williams et al. [27] studied the impact
of butanol and other bio-components on thermal efciency of
prototype and conventional engines. It was found that butanol
blends offered measurable gains in thermal efciency in line with
the relative octane lift over base gasoline. And butanol blends

114

R. Feng et al. / Renewable Energy 81 (2015) 113e122

Table 1
Typical properties of gasoline, methanol, ethanol and n-butanol.
Property

Gasoline

Methanol

Ethanol

n-Butanol

Chemical formula
Molecular weight (g/mol)
Composition (C, H, O) (mass%)
Lower heating value (MJ/kg)
Density (kg/m3 at 20  C)
Octane number (R M)/2
Boiling temperature ( C)
Latent heat of vaporization (25 kJ/kg)
Auto-ignition temperature ( C)
Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio
Laminar ame speed (cm/s)a,b
Adiabatic ame temperature (K)

C4eC12
100e105
86, 14, 0
42.9
720e760
86e94
25e275
380e500
257
14.7
51
2370

CH3OH
32
37.5, 12.5, 50
20.1
792
98.6
64.5
1178
465
6.4
68
1890

C2H5OH
46
52, 13, 35
26.8
790
99.1
78.3
904
422
9.0
63
2310

C4H9OH
74
65, 13.5, 21.5
33.1
810
89
118
716
343
11.2
58.5
2340

a
b

T 325 K and P 100 kPa, at stoichiometric mixture.

The gasoline was represented by iso-octane here.

allowed the greatest volume of crude derived gasoline displacement at xed fuel oxygen content. Gu et al. [28] measured the
speeds of laminar ame of tert-butanol-air premixed mixtures and
got the results that laminar burning velocity of tert-butanol-air
mixtures increase with the increase of initial temperature and
decrease with the increase of initial pressure. Gu et al. [22] also
conducted an experiment on a port-fuel injection SI engine fueled
with blends of gasoline and n-butanol at different spark timings
and exhaust gas recycling (EGR) rates. It was found that advancing
spark timing increases engine specific HC and NOx emissions and
particle number concentration while it decreases engine specific
CO emissions. EGR can reduce engine specific NOx emissions and
particle number concentration simultaneously on SI engine fueled
with gasoline and n-butanol blends. These tendencies were similar
to Ref. [29]. Venugopal and Ramesh [30] studied the effect of injection timing on a SI engine using dual injection of n-butanol and
gasoline at the intake port. The results showed that with dual injection, n-butanol has to be used at higher throttle positions for
good performance and low emissions. Injection timing mainly inuences HC emission, and injection phasing has a small inuence
on emissions. Mittal et al. [31] studied two different fuel blends
containing 10% and 15% of butanol in Gasoline by volume, which
are tested on an engine dynamometer using the uncoated and
ceramic coated engines. The results strongly indicated that combination of ceramic coated engine and butanol gasoline blended
fuel has potential to improve engine performance. Besides the
regulated emissions, Broustail et al. [32] studied the non-regulated
pollutants (methane, acetylene, ethylene, benzene, acetaldehyde
and formaldehyde) on a single-cylinder port-fuel injection SI engine, and comparisons have been made between iso-octane
butanol blends and iso-octane ethanol blends. The results
showed that ethanol has a superior emission performance relative
to butanol and they are both better than iso-octane.
As the very important research factor and direction, the studies
about engine combustion heat release of butanol-gasoline blend
also have been carried out. Dagaut and Togbe [33] examined
theoretical and experimental analyses of combustion mechanism of
n-butanol-gasoline mixtures and studied oxidation mechanism
using a jet stirred reactor. They reported good agreement between
experimental results and the computations of detailed chemical
kinetic scheme for n-butanol-gasoline blend. Furthermore, combustion processes of SI engine fueled with butanol-gasoline blend
or neat butanol were investigated. Yang et al. [34] and Deng et al.
[35] achieved the combustion efficiency increasing by adjusting
ignition timing on a SI engine fueled with butanol-gasoline blend.
Serras-Pereira et al. [36] studied combustion processes of SI engine

fueled with butanol-gasoline blend or neat butanol, and Tornatore

et al. [37] investigated the effect on the spark ignition combustion
process of 40% of n-butanol blended in volume with 60% pure
gasoline through cycle resolved visualization applied in a single
cylinder SI engine working at low speed, medium boosting and
wide open throttle. The results showed that laminar burning velocity is faster with butanol addition and similar results were found
in research of Ref. [38].
However, only a few studies for SI engine combustion heat
release analysis, performance, economy and emissions with the
butanol blend at the same time, especially for the very high speed
gasoline engines. Furthermore, many studies just focused on conventional harmful exhaust emissions (CO, HC and NOx) when use
butanol as SI engine fuel. Although CO2 is a non-toxic gas, which is
not classified as an engine pollutant, it is one of the substances
responsible for global temperature rises through the greenhouse
effect [39,40], and CO2 emission has not been usually taken into
account in many studies. Moreover, Oxygen (O2) emission can
reect some situations of other emissions but it was rarely concerned by investigators. Based on authors' previous studies
[34,35,41,42], the objectives of this study will be find out common
principles about the inuence on combustion heat release, performance, fuel economy and the exhaust emissions of SI engine for
variables such as ignition timing, engine load and butanol blend
ratio. In this study, experiments were conducted on a single cylinder high speed SI motorcycle engine for two operating modes of
full load and partial load at 6500 and 8500 rpm with pure gasoline,
30% and 35% volume butanol-gasoline blends. Engine performance,
fuel economy and exhaust (HC, CO, CO2, NOx and O2) emissions
have been tested and analyzed among pure gasoline, 30% and 35%
volume butanol-gasoline blend.
2. Experimental setup
The engine used in this study is a single cylinder, four-stroke, 2valve, air-cooling SI motorcycle engine with compression ratio of
9.2. The specications of this engine are listed in Table 2.
In this study, three fuels were tested, including pure commercial
90# gasoline (PGS) which is used as the base fuel, two n-butanol
and gasoline blends denoted as Bu30 and Bu35 (Bux means the
volume fraction of n-butanol in the blend is x). Table 1 showed
main properties of gasoline and butanol.
Experiments were conducted on a fully warmed engine. Engine
was tested on full load from 3000 to 8500 rpm with an interval of
500 rpm. The partial loads were conducted at 6500 and 8500 rpm.
Firstly, air/fuel ratio (AFR) was adjusted for adapting the 30% and

R. Feng et al. / Renewable Energy 81 (2015) 113e122

115

3. Discussion of combustion heat release results

Table 2
Engine specications.

3.1. The impact of ignition timing

Items

Content

Engine type
Cooling model
Bore
Stroke
Compression ratio
Displacement
Connecting rod
Max power
Max torque
Min BSEC

4 Strokes, 1 cylinder, spark ignition

Air cooling
56.5 mm
49.5 mm
9.2:1
124.1 cm3
104.5 mm
6.99/8000 (kW/rpm)
9.25/6500 (N m/rpm)
13.44 [MJ/(kW h)]

35% volume butanol addition. Secondly, ignition timing was optimized to produce the maximum brake torque (MBT) [43]. All the
operation points' conditions are shown in Table 3. For butanolgasoline blend fuels, all cases were tested twice. The first one was
performed without modifying anything of the engine, and the
second test was performed under the ignition timing optimization,
denoted as OIT. Engine operating parameters such as intake,
exhaust and inecylinder pressure, temperature, as well as engine
performance parameters such as torque, brake specific energy
consumption (BSEC) and exhaust emissions (HC, CO, CO2 and NOx),
including O2 in exhaust were measured for each tested case. The
picture and schematic diagram of experimental setup are shown in
Fig. 1.
Inecylinder pressure was measured by a pressure sensor (AVL
Z121) which was fitted together with spark plug with a precision of
0.001 bar. Heat release rate of fuel chemical energy was obtained
from AVL combustion analyzer. Engine emissions were also
measured by HORIBA MEXA-7100D analyzer. Engine AFR was
measured by analyzing the exhaust gas contents with a precision of
0.1%. Due to lack of AFR control for the existing fuel system, fuel
mass ow per cycle was kept at constant for all fuels in a given
condition. The stoichiometric AFR of gasoline is 14.7, 30% volume
butanol-gasoline blend is 13.64, and 13.47 for 35% volume butanolgasoline blend, so the blend fuels always run at leaner fuel air
mixtures relative to pure gasoline, as shown in Fig. 2. That means
the engine was tested in the mode of equivalent absolute fuel air
mixtures.

Ignition timing has a signicant effect on SI engines [44]. It has a

considerable inuence on combustion characteristics, and therefore, affects engine performance and combustion products.
Generally speaking, too-advanced ignition timing causes cylinder
pressure to increase substantially and rapidly before the end of
compression stroke. This increases the work lost in compression
process, and therefore, decreases the net useful work. In contrast,
too-delayed ignition timing results in a lower peak pressure
occurring very late in expansion process. This reduces the work
transfer from expanding gases to piston [45]. So there exists an
optimal choice for ignition timing. The optimum ignition timing
produces satisfactorily high cylinder pressure, with its peak
occurring just after top dead center. This ensures minimum
compression work and maximum work transfer during the
expansion stroke. Some properties of butanol are different from
those of gasoline, such as boiling temperature, vapor pressure,
latent heat of vaporisation, heating value, ame temperature,
diffusion coefficient and octane number. So ignition timing should
likely also differ from those used with pure gasoline. Butanol provides a higher knock resistance for allowing earlier ignition timing
[40,46]. The optimized ignition timing under full load operation is
shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen that the optimized ignition timing of
Bu30 OIT and Bu35 OIT are advanced when compared to pure
gasoline at all speeds, which is coincided with the research of
Ref. [47]. And it can also be seen in Fig. 3 that Bu35 achieved a more
advanced ignition timing than Bu30 at most speeds, especially in
the range of 3500e7500 rpm which is commonly used in practical
driving.
Figs. 4 and 5 show the rate of heat release (ROHR) and
inecylinder pressure for PGS, Bu30 and B35 in different status at
full load at four specific speeds (low speed of 3000 rpm, middle
speed of 6000 rpm, high speeds of 7000 and 8500 rpm), respectively. At low speed, the prole of ROHR is narrow and high. But it is
wide and low at high speed. That is because the ROHR is measured
by crank angle degree, and a greater number of crank angle degree
were covered as engine speed increased during the similar time
period magnitude of combustion processes. It is clearly seen, as
expected, that the peak ROHR is larger and occurred earlier as the

Table 3
All the operation points' conditions.
Speed (rpm)

3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500

7000
7500
8000
8500

Engine load

Full

Full
3Nm
5Nm
7Nm
Full

Full
3Nm
5Nm
7Nm

Ignition timing ( CA)

Air/fuel ratio ()

PGS

Bu30 OIT

Bu35 OIT

PGS

Bu30

Bu35

20.5
20.5
20.5
21
21.5
22
22.5
23.5
21
22.5
23
25.5
29
30.5
31.5
28.5
30
31

25
26
27
26
28
29
28
28
25.5
27
27.5
27
30
32
35.5
30.5
32
33.5

24.5
26
27.5
30
31
30
31.5
29.5
26
27.5
29
31
30
32
34
31
32.5
33.5

0.79
0.77
0.81
0.84
0.84
0.86
0.87
0.86
0.92
0.89
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.81
0.77
0.85
0.83
0.80

0.85
0.84
0.87
0.89
0.9
0.91
0.92
0.92
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.9
0.89
0.86
0.82
0.89
0.87
0.84

0.91
0.88
0.92
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.99
0.97
1.08
1.05
1.01
0.94
0.93
0.9
0.85
0.92
0.90
0.87

116

R. Feng et al. / Renewable Energy 81 (2015) 113e122

Fig. 1. The picture (left) and schematic diagram (right) of experimental setup.

process. This is coincided with the observation of Ref. [38], where

showed that the coefficient of variance (COV) of net indicated mean
effective pressure (IMEP) for butanol is slighter than that for pure
gasoline.
The behavior of heat release at full load can be seen in Fig. 6. The
over-advanced ignition timing causes faster combustion and higher
rate of heat release that depicted in Fig. 6a. The burning speeds of
Bu30 and Bu35 are faster than that of PGS during the early ame
development stage represented by 0e10% mass fraction burned
(MFB) with or without OIT, as shown in Fig. 6b. That is because the
earlier in the late stage of compression stroke, the lower temperature of mixture gas due to less compression work done by piston.
And lower temperature of combustible mixture would result in
lower reaction rate in pre-ignition phase [48]. This mainly explains
the slower burning of Bu30 and Bu35 with OIT operation in early
ame stage. In addition, higher heat of vaporization and lower
energy density of butanol relative to pure gasoline further decrease
combustion temperature, this demonstrated the reason of Bu30
and Bu35 without OIT were burned slower than PGS in all combustion development phases (Fig. 6bed). Nevertheless, those effects on ame development brought by butanol can be
compensated by advancing ignition timing, higher knocking resistance and faster laminar ame speed, leading to more advanced
50% MFB location, shorter duration of 0e10% and 10e90% MFB, as
shown in Fig. 6bed.

1.0

(-)

0.9
PGS
Bu30
Bu35

0.8
0.7

0.6
2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500
Speed (r/min)

Ignition Timing ( CA BTDC)

Fig. 2. Comparison of air/fuel ratio during the test.

PGS
Bu30+OIT
Bu35+OIT

40
35
30
25
20

15
2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500
Speed (r/min)

3.2. The impact of butanol blend ratio

Fig. 3. The ignition timing for PGS, Bu30 OIT and Bu35 OIT.

As mentioned above, only 30% and 35% butanol blend ratios are
considered due to the indistinguishable inuence on engine performance below butanol blend ratio of 25%. Figs. 7 and 8 give the
combustion events at different speeds under full load operation. As
shown in Fig. 7, the 10e90% combustion durations of Bu35 is larger
than that of Bu30 when operated without OIT, but shorter than that
of Bu30 with OIT operations. From Fig. 8, the location of 50% MFB of

ROHR (1/ CA)

ignition timing advancing. Furthermore, the difference among PGS,

Bu30 and Bu35 is smaller at high speed. Similar characteristics were
observed for inecylinder pressure (Fig. 5). Note that the ROHRs of
PGS are more oscillating than that of Bu30 and Bu35 (see Fig. 4),
which indicated that butanol is helpful for stabilizing combustion

0.06
(a)
(b)
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
-30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 -30 -15 0 15 30 45

Crank angle ( CA)

PGS
Bu30
Bu30+OIT
Bu35
Bu35+OIT

(c)

(d)

60 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60

Crank angle ( CA)

Crank angle ( CA)

Crank angle ( CA)

Fig. 4. The rate of heat release for PGS, Bu30 and Bu35 of (a): 3000 rpm, (b): 5000 rpm, (c): 7000 rpm, (d): 8500 rpm.

R. Feng et al. / Renewable Energy 81 (2015) 113e122

Pressure (bar)

55

PGS
Bu30
Bu30+OIT
Bu35
Bu35+OIT

(b)

(a)

45
35
25

117

(c)

(d)

15
5

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Crank angle (CA)

Crank angle (CA)

Crank angle (CA)

Crank angle (CA)

0.06
0.05
0.04

0.03
2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500
Speed (r/min)
20
(c)
15
10
5
0
2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500
Speed (r/min)

22
0-10% MFB (CA)

PGS
Bu30
Bu30+OIT
Bu35
Bu35+OIT

(a)

10-90% MFB (CA)

0.07

50% MFB ( CA ATDC)

Peak rate of MFB (1/ CA)

Fig. 5. The inecylinder pressure for PGS, Bu30 and Bu35 of (a): 3000 rpm, (b): 5000 rpm, (c): 7000 rpm, (d): 8500 rpm.

(b)

20
18
16
14
2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500
Speed (r/min)
35

(d)

30
25
20
15
2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500
Speed (r/min)

40
35
30
25
20
15

(a)

3000 rpm
4000 rpm
5000 rpm
6000 rpm

(b)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Butanol blend ratio (%)
Butanol blend ratio (%)

50% MFB ( CA)

Fig. 7. The duration of 10e90% MFB at different speeds under full load operation of (a):
without OIT, (b): with OIT. The 0% butanol blend ratio means the pure gasoline.

20
15
10
5
0

(a)

(b)

3000 rpm+OIT
4000 rpm+OIT
5000 rpm+OIT
6000 rpm+OIT

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Butanol blend ratio (%)
Butanol blend ratio (%)

Fig. 8. The location of 50% MFB (reference to TDC, positive value means after TDC) at
different speeds with full load operation of (a): without OIT, (b): with OIT. The 0%
butanol blend ratio means the pure gasoline.

Bu35 is more advanced than that of Bu30 without OIT, but almost
the same at the OIT operation. That is because butanol produces
more complete combustion due to the more oxygen content and
leaner fuel air mixture (see Fig. 2), leading to more energy input
from fuel chemical reactions. Fig. 9 shows cylinder head temperature in different operations. It can be seen that cylinder head
temperature of Bu35 is higher than that of Bu30 when operated at
original ignition timing, but opposite results were obtained with
OIT operations. This is because there is more heat transfer to
chamber wall from burned fuels with the combustion duration
increase. Thus, combustion conditions can be reected by heat
transfer between cylinder fuels and solid components in some
ways. From Fig. 9, as engine speed increases, cylinder head temperature will increase and the relative heat transfer loss (percentage of total energy) will decrease [49]. It can also be seen that the
differences of cylinder head surface temperature of Bu35 and Bu30
at OIT operation are more close to each other than those at original

220

Temperature ( C)

10-90% MFB ( CA)

Fig. 6. The combustion events at different speeds under full load: (a) peak rate of MFB, (b) duration of 0e10% MFB, (c) duration of 10e90% MFB, (d) locations of 50% MFB.

200
180
160
140

PGS
Bu30
Bu30+OIT
Bu35
Bu35+OIT

120
2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500
Speed (r/min)

Fig. 9. Comparison of cylinder head surface temperature.

R. Feng et al. / Renewable Energy 81 (2015) 113e122

0.04

ROHR (1/ CA)

ignition timing. This can be explained when looking into Fig. 5,

which shows that the curves between Bu35 and Bu30 almost
overlap when operated with OIT, but in the cases without OIT, it
shows different statuses at different speeds. At low speed, Bu30
have a more complete combustion, while it achieved a contrary
result at high speed, and they shook hands at medium speed. This
indicates that, for some speeds, same ignition timing would cause
big difference in combustion process for different fuels. In fact,
when the engine fueled with butanol-blend fuels, it cannot obtain
the desired combustion process by using the original ignition
timing. Moreover, different ignition timing is needed when using
different butanol blend ratios [48]. It also indicates that cylinder
head temperature cannot reect combustion condition absolutely.
In addition, there is not a monotonicity or linear relationship for a
specic operating parameter as the speed changes for high speed
engine due to its big span of speed operating range. Furthermore,
we should note that the difference of 5% blend ratio in this study
did not bring a high identiability in heat release. Obviously, the
experiments of higher butanol blend ratios are needed to extend
the investigated range, for searching more persuasive conclusions.

(a)

3 N.m
5 N.m
7 N.m

0.03
0.02

(b)

0.01
0.00
-30 -15 0 15 30 45 60
Crank angle ( CA)

-30 -15 0 15 30 45 60
Crank angle ( CA)

Fig. 11. The rates of heat release at different loads of 6500 rpm: (a) PGS, (b) Bu35 OIT.

0.04

ROHR (1/ CA)

118

0.03

(a)

3 N.m
5 N.m
7 N.m

(b)

0.02
0.01
0.00
-30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75
Crank angle (CA)

-30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75
Crank angle (CA)

3.3. The impact of engine load

Engine load is the main effect factor on global efciency, rather
than engine speed or fuel type [50]. It can not only show engine
characteristics, but also reects engine actual working conditions.
6500 and 8500 rpm were considered for analyzing the impacts of
engine load. The loads of 3 N m (low load), 5 N m (medium load)
and 7 Nm (high load) were used, and only the 35% butanol-blend
ratio fuel was considered in engine load impact of this study.
Fig. 10 gives the combustion events of PGS, Bu35 and Bu35 OIT
in different status at 6500 and 8500 rpm. It can be seen that there is
a similar trend for PGS, Bu35 and Bu35 OIT at different speeds.
The more efcient combustion can also be achieved in partial loads
by advancing ignition timing with butanol addition which is similar
to full load operation. It should be noted that the full load operation
did not follow the original trend, especially at 6500 rpm, mainly
because of the knock limitations. More detailed heat release phenomena for Bu35 with OIT operation are depicted in Figs. 11 and 12,
as can be seen that the curves for 8500 rpm are sharper near the
peak position probably due to the stronger turbulent intensity at
high speed. In addition, the difference between 7 N m and 5 N m are
smaller than those between 5 N m and 3 N m at both 6500 and
8500 rpm.
4. Discussion of performance and emissions results

50% and 10-90% MFB ( CA)

Engine performance, fuel economy and emissions at full load

between butanol-gasoline blend fuel and pure gasoline under

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

(a)

PGS
Bu35
Bu35+OIT

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Engine torque (N.m)

(b)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Engine torque (N.m)

Fig. 10. The combustion events versus engine torque in different status of (a):
6500 rpm, (b): 8500 rpm. The top three lines are duration of 10e90% MFB and the
bottom ones are location of 50% MFB (reference to TDC, positive value means after
TDC).

Fig. 12. The rates of heat release at different loads of 8500 rpm: (a) PGS, (b)
Bu35 OIT.

different operations and status have been compared, as shown in

Fig. 13.
Fig. 13a and b shows that engine power and torque of 30% and
35% butanol-gasoline blend fuels without ignition timing optimization are lower than those of pure gasoline at full load. But with
ignition timing optimization, engine power and torque of
Bu30 OIT and Bu35 OIT are higher than those of pure gasoline
for all speeds. The variation tendency of engine power and torque at
full load are similar to that reported by Martin et al. [51] in 2012.
That is because Bu30 and Bu35 without OIT are burned slower than
pure gasoline and the specic reasons have been analyzed in the
impact of ignition timing on heat release. Nevertheless, as
mentioned before, with ignition timing optimization, butanolgasoline blend fuel burns faster than pure gasoline. Moreover,
Bu30 OIT and Bu35 OIT with higher knocking resistance, faster
laminar ame speed, more advanced 50% MFB location, shorter
duration of 0e10% and 10e90% MFB, leading high combustion
efciency.
Fuel consumption is an important indicator in engine evaluation. As the regular economy indicator, brake specic fuel consumption (BSFC) is not a very reliable parameter to compare fuel
blends as caloric value and density of the blends follow a slightly
different trend [52]. In this paper, engine brake specic energy
consumption (BSEC) is used to compare volumetric consumption of
all test fuels for evaluating engine economy. It is described as
multiplication of BSFC and lower heating value (LHV) [18]. The
comparisons of engine BSEC is shown in Fig. 13c. As shown in
Fig. 13c, engine BSEC of Bu30 and Bu35 are signicantly reduced at
full load. And the higher butanol blend ratio, the lower BSEC. This is
due to higher density and lower heating value of butanol-gasoline
blend compared to pure gasoline. On the other hand, Butanolgasoline blend with leaner fuel mixture have higher combustion
efciency and higher fuel conversion efciency [46]. It can also be
found that BSEC of butanol-gasoline blend fuel is very sensitive to
ignition timing. That is because combustion efciency improved
with ignition timing optimization. In Fig. 13c, the BSEC of
Bu35 OIT is the lowest.
Unburned Hydrocarbon (HC) emission from engine is mainly
due to completely unburned or only partially burned fuel. Low

R. Feng et al. / Renewable Energy 81 (2015) 113e122

4
3

CO (ppm)

HC (ppm)

7.5

4x10

Speed (r/min)

(g)
O2(ppm)

2500

9000

1500
500

7000

Speed (r/min)

1.3x10

(f)

1.2x10

1.1x10

1.0x10

9.0x10
2500350045005500650075008500

Speed (r/min)

(h)
PGS
Bu30
Bu30+OIT
Bu35
Bu35+OIT

5000
3000

2500350045005500650075008500

Speed (r/min)

2500350045005500650075008500

Speed (r/min)

11
2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500

2x10

3500

13

(e)

6x10

(c)

15

1.4x10

1500
2500350045005500650075008500

NOx (ppm)

Speed (r/min)

8x10

(d)

2500

8.0

2500350045005500650075008500

Speed (r/min)
3500

8.5

7.0

2
2500350045005500650075008500
4500

BSEC (MJ/kW.h)

9.0

17

(b)

CO2(ppm)

9.5

(a)
Torque (ppm)

Power (kW)

119

2500350045005500650075008500

Speed (r/min)

Fig. 13. Engine performance, fuel economy and emissions comparisons among pure gasoline, Bu30 and Bu35 (a): Power, (b): Torque, (c): BSEC, (d): HC (e): CO, (f): CO2, (g): NOx, (h):
O2.

emission indicates that fuel and air is well mixed and that there is
sufcient oxygen to combust all fuels [53]. The amount of unburned
hydrocarbon depends on engine operating conditions and fuel
properties to some extent [31]. Fig. 13d shows the comparisons of
HC emissions for pure gasoline and butanol-gasoline blend fuel in
different operations and status at full load. HC emitted by 30% and
35% butanol-gasoline blend are much lower than that of pure
gasoline at all speeds. HC emission decreased with the increasing of
butanol percentage. As shown in Fig. 13d, the higher butanol blend
ratio, the lower HC emission. HC emission decreasing can be
explained by butanol-gasoline blend fuel properties and combustion process. As mentioned above, 30% and 35% butanol-gasoline
blend fuel burns more thoroughly than pure gasoline due to its
higher relative AFR and lower carbon content. The higher combustion efciency of 30% and 35% butanol-gasoline blend causes
the reduction of HC emission. In Fig. 13d, it can also be found that
with ignition timing optimization, HC emission of Bu30 OIT is
almost same with that of Bu30. Obviously, HC emissions of
Bu35 OIT and Bu35 have the same trend. So we can draw conclusions that HC emission is not sensitive to ignition timing but
greatly affected by properties of fuel to some extent.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a toxic gas and must be controlled. It is
an intermediate product formed during combustion of hydrocarbon fuels. Some reasons for the formation of CO include incomplete
combustion and poor air fuel management [53,54]. And the presence of oxygen plays a major role in CO emissions in SI engine [31].
Fig. 13e shows CO emissions of pure gasoline and butanol-gasoline
blend under different status and operations at full load. It can be
seen that CO emissions of 30% and 35% butanol-gasoline blend are
much lower than that of pure gasoline at all engine speeds. CO
emission decreased with the increasing of butanol percentage. This

result is in accordance with the studies which have been reported

by many studies [22,32,34,38]. The reasons for that are the same
with that of HC emission. So we can also draw the conclusions that
CO emission is greatly affected by the properties of fuel in some
ways [55]. In Fig. 13e, it can also be found that with ignition timing
optimization, CO emission of Bu30 OIT is lower than that of Bu30.
But CO emission of Bu35 OIT is almost the same with that of Bu35.
The possible reason may be that Bu30 didn't combust completely at
that AFR (Fig. 2) during the test together with original ignition
timing, and advanced ignition timing can help to reduce CO emission for the 30% butanol-gasoline blend. But Bu35 at that AFR
(Fig. 2) is much leaner than that of Bu30. At that situation, CO
emission is not sensitive to ignition timing.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) occurs naturally in the atmosphere and is a
normal product of combustion. CO2 is considered as a major
greenhouse gas. It is an important component in global warming
and should be controlled at the acceptable levels [56]. The ideal
combustion of HC fuels under the stoichiometric air fuel ratio or
slightly lean mixture conditions should produce only CO2 and
water [57]. CO2 emission is directly related to the efciency of engine combustion process [42]. In Refs. [58], the author mentioned
that the higher efciency of combustion process, the lower CO2
emissions. But in this paper, we found opposite behaviors. That is, if
combustion more complete, more CO2 would emit. As shown in
Fig. 13e and f, CO2 emission has an opposite behavior when
compared with CO emission [59]. CO2 emissions of 30% and 35%
butanol-gasoline blend fuel are much higher than that of pure
gasoline at full load. CO2 emission increased with the increasing of
butanol percentage. It is also found that CO2 emissions of
Bu30 OIT and Bu35 OIT are higher than that without ignition
timing optimization. That's because the advancing ignition timing

120

R. Feng et al. / Renewable Energy 81 (2015) 113e122

will create a higher cylinder temperature and this augmented

chemical reaction speed. Fig. 13f also shows that the maximum CO2
emissions of pure gasoline and butanol-gasoline blend fuel appear
at around 6500 rpm, which produces the maximum torque from
the test engine, as shown in Table 2. This is because, one, the AFR is
relatively high at 6500 rpm (see Fig. 2), which means high oxygen
content for fuel oxidation; Two, the temperature is also relatively
high at around 6500 rpm (see Fig. 9), which can produce higher
conversion from CO to CO2 [60].
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) formation is dependent on combustion
temperature, residence time, oxygen concentration and the effective volume of combustion zone as stated in Zeldovich mechanism
[61e65]. There are many factors inuence NOx formation,
including engine load, temperature, combustion chamber content,
combustion chamber homogeneity and mixture density [31]. During combustion process, NOx forms in both ame-front and postame [66]. As shown in Fig. 13g, NOx emission of Bu30 is lightly
higher than that of PGS. NOx emissions of Bu30 OIT and Bu35 are
much higher than that of PGS at all speeds. NOx emission of
Bu35 OIT is the highest. There are some possible reasons. First,
the combustion gas temperature with butanol-gasoline blend is
higher than that of pure gasoline, which is reected by measured
cylinder head surface temperature as seen in Fig. 9. Second,
butanol-gasoline blend contains oxygen and has a lower stoichiometric AFR, which is shown in Table 1. While this engine was
calibrated for pure gasoline and at the meantime it was not possible
to adjust the AFR. The absolute AFR for all tested fuels were kept at
the same value for a given condition. So the combustion was relatively leaner and more oxygen was available to produce NOx for
butanol-gasoline blend fuel. Therefore, with the increasing of
butanol blend ratio, NOx emission increased. And advancing ignition timing causes NOx emission increased. This is because the
advancing ignition timing would increase cylinder temperature
during combustion process, which has been explained before.
Though Oxygen (O2) is not harmful, yet its content in engine
exhaust gas can reects some situations of other emissions. Oxygen
in exhaust is the result of excessive air (leaning out) in the AFR [67].
Fig. 13h shows the variation of oxygen (O2) emission with engine
speeds for different operations and status at full load. The O2 content of Bu35 OIT is the highest, PGS of that is the lowest, and
others are in the middle. There are many factors, such as air fuel
ratio, butanol blend ration, fuel properties, ignition timing and
other operation parameters. In this study, as shown in Fig. 9, Bu30
and Bu35 have the higher cylinder head temperature than that of
pure gasoline, which will produce more O2 concentration at high
temperature combustion zone in cylinder [66]. Furthermore, the
leaner mixture of Bu30 and Bu35 can accommodate more O2 from
this dissociation process than that of pure gasoline which introduces more complete combustion of cylinder charge during
after-combustion period. The excess O2 will be removed as exhaust
gas during exhaust stroke [68]. In addition, the chemically bound
oxygen in butanol-gasoline fuel provided another excess source of
oxygen component, which added to excess inlet air in reactant
mixture. Hence, burning butanol-gasoline blend fuel produced
more residual oxygen emissions than pure gasoline fuel. And with
ignition timing optimization, the combustion will be improved and
thereby releasing more O2.
Through the experimental results and analysis of engine performance, fuel economy, and emissions at full load, we found that
with 35% volume butanol addition, combined with using the optimum ignition timing, the tested engine has the best integrative
performances. Compared to pure gasoline, Good results have been
achieved from Bu35 OIT in torque (increased by 2.1% on average),
engine BSEC (decreased by 15.8% on average), HC emission
(decreased by 22.4% on average), CO emission (decreased by 48.1%

on average) and O2 emission (increased by 63.4% on average). On

the other hand, NOx and CO2 emissions (increased by 165.3%
and12.2% on average respectively) are worse than those of pure
gasoline. However, it should be noted that the absolute value of
NOx emission is very low relative to CO emission.
5. Conclusions
Combustion heat release, performance, fuel economy and
emissions of a single cylinder high speed SI motorcycle engine have
been studied by experiment. Based on this study, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1). Combustion heat release analysis results show that butanolgasoline blend provides higher knocking resistance for
allowing advancing ignition timing in SI engines, leading to
more complete combustion. With butanol blend ratio
increasing, higher oxygen content and anti-knock ability are
useful to improve combustion efciency. Engine load is more
inuencing on combustion heat release than fuel type.
2). Engine power, torque, BSEC, CO, HC, NOx and CO2 emissions
have been compared and analyzed among pure gasoline, 30%
and 35% volume butanol-gasoline blend. Good results have
been achieved in engine power, torque, BSEC, HC, CO, and O2
emissions with 35% volume butanol addition, combined with
using the ignition timing optimization. But NOx and CO2
emissions are higher than those of original level of pure
gasoline.
3). Engine power, torque, and NOx emission depend more on
the operating parameters, which directly affect engine
combustion process. HC, CO, CO2 and O2 emissions are highly
related to fuel properties. And engine economy is affected by
both fuel properties and engine operating parameters to
some extent. Nevertheless, this conclusion is limited to the
present tested engine and it needs to be further conrmed by
more studies.
Acknowledgments
The work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Program No. 51175164) and the Major State Basic
Research Development Program of China (973 Program,
2011CB707201). The authors would like to thank Hunan University,
China and California State University, Fresno for the support to the
rst author as visiting scholar. The authors appreciate the anonymous reviewers and the editor for carefully reading this paper and
suggesting many helpful comments in improving the original
manuscript.
Nomenclature
AFR
BSFC
BSEC
CA
COV
CO
CO2
DDGS
EGR
HC
IMEP
LHV
MBT
MFB

air/fuel ratio
brake specic fuel consumption
break specic energy consumption
crankshaft angle
coefficient of variance
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
distillers dry grains and solubles
exhaust gas recycling
hydrocarbon
indicated mean effective pressure
lower heat value
maximum brake torque
mass fraction burned

R. Feng et al. / Renewable Energy 81 (2015) 113e122

NO
NOx
OIT
O2
PGS
ROHR
SI
TDC

nitric oxide
nitrogen oxides
optimize ignition timing
oxygen
pure gasoline
rate of heat release
spark ignition
top dead center

References
[1] Liu JP, Fu JQ, Fen CQ, Wang LJ, Xu ZX, Deng BL. Comparison and analysis of
engine exhaust gas energy recovery potential through various bottom cycles.
Apply Therm Eng 2013;50:1219e34.
[2] Fu JQ, Liu JP, Feng RH, Yang YP, Wu LJ, Wang Y. Energy and exergy analysis on
gasoline engine based on mapping characteristics experiment. Appl Energy
2013;102:622e30.
[3] Ahmad A, Barat G, Mohammad RO, Gholamhassan N. Current biodiesel production technologies: a comparative review. Energy Convers Manag 2012;63:
138e48.
[4] Akopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG, Dimaratos AM, Kyritsis DC.
Effects of butanol-diesel fuel blends on the performance and emissions of a
high-speed DI diesel engine. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51:1989e97.
[5] Demirbas A. Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: a
review. Appl Energy 2009;86:108e17.
[6] Demirbas H, Balat M, Balat H. Biowastes-to-biofuels. Energy Convers Manag
2011;52:1815e28.
[7] Aleiferis PG, Serras-Pereira J, Richardson D. Characterisation of ame development with ethanol, butanol, iso-octane, gasoline and methane in a directinjection spark-ignition engine. Fuel 2013;103:256e78.
[8] Chen Z, Wu ZK, Liu JP, Lee JF. Combustion and emissions characteristics of high
n-butanol/diesel ratio blend in a heavy-duty diesel engine and EGR impact.
Energy Convers Manag 2014;78:787e95.
[9] Chen Z, Liu JP, Wu ZK, Lee JF. Effects of port fuel injection (PFI) of n-butanol
and EGR on combustion and emissions of a direct injection diesel engine.
Energy Convers Manag 2013;76:725e31.
[10] Qureshi N, Ezeji TC, Ebener J, Dien B, Cotta MA, Blaschek HP. Butanol production by Clostridium beijerinckii. Part I: use of acid and enzyme hydrolysed
corn fiber. Bioresour Technol 2008;99(13):5915e22.
[11] Qureshi N, Saha BC, Cotta MA. Butanol production from wheat straw hydrolysate using Clostridium beijerinckii. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 2007;30:419e27.
[12] Ezeji TC, Blaschek HP. Fermentation of dried distillers' grains and soluble
(DDGS) hydrolysates to solvents and value-added products by solventogenic
clostridia. Bioresour Technol 2008;99(12):5232e42.
[13] Qureshi N, Saha BC, Hector RE, Dien B, Hughes SR, Liu S, et al. Production of
butanol (a biofuel) from agricultural residues: II e use of corn stover and
switchgrass hydrolysates. Biomass Bioenergy 2010;34(4):566e71.
[14] Qureshi N, Saha BC, Dien B, Hector R, Cotta MA. Production of butanol (a
biofuel) from agricultural residues: I e use of barley straw hydrolysate.
Biomass Bioenergy 2010;34(4):559e65.
[15] Gumus M, Kasifoglu S. Butanol production from wheat straw by simultaneous
saccharication and fermentation using clostridium beijerinckii: part I-Batch
fermentation. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;2(32):168e75.
[16] Durre P. Biobutanol: an attractive biofuel. Biotechnol J 2007;2:1525e34.
[17] Agathou MS, Kyritsis DC. Fuel composition effect on the electrostaticallydriven atomization of bio-butanol containing engine fuel blends. Energy
Convers Manag 2012;60:28e35.
[18] Sayin C, Ozsezen AN, Canakci M. The inuence of operating parameters on the
performance and emissions of a DI diesel engine using methanol-blendeddiesel fuel. Fuel 2010;89(7):1407e14.
[19] Zhen XD, Wang Y, Zhu YS. Study of knock in a high compression ratio SI
methanol engine using LES with detailed chemical kinetics. Energy Convers
Manag 2013;75:523e31.
[20] Venugopal T, Ramesh A. Effective utilization of butanol along with gasoline in
a spark ignition engine through a dual injection system. Apply Therm Eng
2013;59:550e8.
[21] Yao CD, Cheung CS, Cheng CH, Wang YS, Chan TL, Lee SC. Effect of diesel/
methanol compound combustion on diesel engine combustion and emissions.
Energy Convers Manag 2008;49:1696e704.
[22] Gu XL, Huang ZH, Cai J, Gong J, Wu XS, Chia-fon L. Emission characteristics of a
spark-ignition engine fuelled with gasoline-n-butanol blends in combination
with EGR. Fuel 2012;93:611e7.
[23] Alasfour FN. Butanol-a single-cylinder engine study: availability analysis. Appl
Thermal Eng 1997;17(6):537e49.
[24] Alasfour FN. NOx emission from a spark ignition engine using 30% iso-butanoegasoline blend: part 1 e preheating inlet air. Appl Thermal Eng
1998;18(5):245e56.
[25] Alasfour FN. NOx emission from a spark ignition engine using 30% Iso-butanoegasoline blend: part 2 e ignition timing. Appl Thermal Eng 1998;18(8):
609e18.

121

[26] Alasfour FN. Effect of using 30% iso-butanolegasoline blend on hydrocarbon

emissions from a spark-ignition engine. Energy Sources 1999;21(5):379e94.
[27] Williams J, Goodfellow C, Lance D, Ota A, Nakata K, Kawatake K. Impact of
butanol and other bio-components on the thermal efciency of prototype and
conventional engines. 2009. SAE 2009-01-1908.
[28] Gu XL, Li QQ, Huang ZH, Zhang N. Measurement of laminar ame speeds and
ame stability analysis of tert-butanoleair mixtures at elevated pressures.
Energy Convers Manag 2011;52:3137e46.
[29] Dernotte J, Mounaim-Rousselle C, Halter F, Seers P. Evaluation of butanolgasoline blends in a port fuel-injection spark-ignition engine. Oil Gas Sci
Technol 2010;65(2):345e51.
[30] Venugopal T, Ramesh A. Experimental studies on the effect of injection timing
in a SI engine using dual injection of n-butanol and gasoline in the intake port.
Fuel 2014;115:295e305.
[31] Mittal N, Athony RL, Bansal R, Kumar CR. Study of performance and emission
characteristics of a partially coated LHR SI engine blended with n-butanol and
gasoline. Alexandria Eng J 2013;52:285e93.
ac G, Mounaim-Rousselle C. Comparison of regu[32] Broustail G, Halter F, More
lated and non-regulated pollutants with iso-octane/butanol and iso-octane/
ethanol blends in a port-fuel injection spark-ignition engine. Fuel 2012;94:
251e61.
[33] Dagaut P, Togbe C. Oxidation kinetics of butanolegasoline surrogate mixtures
in a jet-stirred reactor: experimental and modeling study. Fuel 2008;87:
3313e21.
[34] Yang J, Yang XL, Liu J, Han ZY, Zhong ZH. Dyno test investigations of gasoline
engine fueled with butanol-gasoline blends. 2009. SAE 2009-01-1891.
[35] Deng BL, Yang J, Zhang DM, Feng RH, Fu JQ, Liu JP, et al. The challenges and
strategies of butanol application in conventional engines: the sensitivity study
of ignition and valve timing. Appl Energy 2013;108:248e60.
[36] Serras-Pereira J, Aleiferis PG, Richardson D, Wallace S. Characteristics of
ethanol, butanol, iso-octane and gasoline sprays and combustion from a
multi-hole injector in a DISI Engine. 2008. SAE 2008-01-1591.
[37] Tornatore C, Marchitto L, Valentino G, Felice E, Corcione S, Silvia Me. Optical
diagnostics of the combustion process in a PFI SI boosted engine fueled with
butanolegasoline blend. Energy 2012;45:277e87.
[38] Szwaja S, Naber JD. Combustion of n-butanol in a spark-ignition IC engine.
Fuel 2010;89:1573e82.
[39] Emilio N, Teresa J, Roberto C. CO2 emissions from a spark ignition engine
operation on natural gas-hydrogen blends (HCNG). Appl Energy 2013;101:
112e20.
[40] Ritchie D, Guohong T, Hongming X, Shijin S. Ignition timing sensitivities of
oxygenated biofuels compared to gasoline in a direct-injection SI engine. Fuel
2012;99:72e82.
[41] Yang J, Wang Y, Feng RH. The performance analysis of an engine fueled with
butanol-basoline blend. 2011. SAE 2011-01-1191.
[42] Feng RH, Yang J, Zhang DM, Deng BL, Fu JQ, Liu JQ, et al. Experimental study on
SI engine fuelled with butanolegasoline blend and H2O addition. Energy
Convers Manag 2013;74:192e200.
[43] Chao HR, Lin TC, Chao MR. Effect of methanol containing additive on the
emission of carbonyl compounds from a heavy duty diesel engine. J Hazard
Mater 2000;13:39e54.
[44] Ycesu HS, Sozen A, Topgl T, Arcaklioglu E. Comparative study of mathematical and experimental analysis of spark ignition engine performance used
ethanolegasoline blend fuel. Apply Therm Eng 2007;27:358e68.
[45] Necati T, Baris E, M. Ihsan K, Ali S, Nurullah A. Experimental investigation of
the effect of E85 on engine performance and emissions under various ignition
timings. Fuel 2014;115:826e34.
[46] Irimescu A. Performance and fuel conversion efciency of a spark ignition
engine fueled with iso-butanol. Appl Energy 2012;96:477e83.
[47] Niass T, Amer AA, Xu W, Vogel SR, Krebber-Hortmann K, Adomeit P. Butanol
blending-a promising approach to enhance the thermodynamic potential of
gasoline e Part 1. 2011. SAE 2011-01-1990.
[48] Deng BL, Fu JQ, Zhang DM, Yang J, Feng RH, Liu JQ, et al. The heat release
analysis of bio-butanol/gasoline blends on a high speed SI (spark ignition)
engine. Energy 2013;60:230e41.
[49] Fu JQ, Liu JP, Yang YP, Ren CQ, Zhu GH. A new approach for exhaust energy
recovery of internal combustion engine: steam turbocharging. Appl Therm
Eng 2013;52:150e9.
[50] Costagliola MA, Simio L, Iannaccone S, Prati MV. Combustion efciency and
engine out emissions of a S.I. engine fueled with alcohol/gasoline blends. Appl
Energy 2013;111:1162e71.
[51] Martin P, Martin M, Michal V. Effect of higher content n-butanol blends on
combustion, exhaust emissions and catalyst performance of an unmodied SI
vehicle engine. 2012. SAE 2012-01-1594.
[52] Bajpai S, Sahoo PK, Das LM. Feasibility of blending karanja vegetable oil in
petro-diesel and utilization in a direct injection diesel engine. Fuel 2009;88:
705e11.
[53] Benjamin W, Robert C, Chia-Fon L, Dimitrios K. Emissions characteristics of
neat butanol fuel using a port fule-injected, spark-ignition engine. 2011. SAE
2011-01-0902.
[54] Heywood. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. New York: McGrawhill; 1988. 978e0070286375.
[55] Rakopoulos DC. Combustion and emissions of cottonseed oil and its bio-diesel
in blends with either n-butanol or diethyl ether in HSDI diesel engine. Fuel
2013;105:603e13.

122

R. Feng et al. / Renewable Energy 81 (2015) 113e122

[56] Lu JG, Lu CT, Chen Y, Gao L, Zhao X, Zhang H, et al. CO2 capture by membrane
absorption coupling process: application of ionic liquids. Appl Energy
2014;115:573e81.
[57] Cenk S, Kadir U, Mustafa C. Inuence of injection timing on the exhaust
emissions of a dual-fuel CI engine. Renew Energy 2008;33:1314e23.
[58] Mohan K, Daniel KC, Gregory T. Cost of lower NO emissions: Increased CO2
emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines. Atmos Environ 2007;41:666e75.
[59] Sayin C, Kilicaslan I, Canakci M, Necati O. An experimental study of the effect
of octane number higher than engine requirement on the engine performance
and emissions. Appl Therm Eng 2005;5:1315e24.
[60] Lu XC, Zhou XX, Ji LB, Yang Z, Han D, Huang C, et al. Experimental studies on
the dual-fuel sequential combustion and emission simulation. Energy
2013;51:358e73.
[61] Lakshmanan T, Nagarajan G. Experimental investigation of timed manifold
injection of acetylene in direct injection diesel engine in dual fuel mode.
Energy 2010;35:3172e8.

[62] Lin SL, Lee WJ, Chia-fon L, Wu YP. Reduction in emissions of nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon by adding watercontaining butanol into a diesel-fueled engine generator. Fuel 2012;93:364e72.
[63] Ajav EA, Singh B, Bhattacharya TK. Performance of a stationary diesel engine
using vaporized ethanol as supplementary fuel. Biomass Bioenergy
1998;15(6):493e502.
[64] Andrea TD, Henshaw PF, Ting DS. The addition of hydrogen to gasoline-fuelled
SI engine. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2004;29:1541e52.
[65] Challen B. Diesel engine reference book. England: Butterworth and Heinemann Publishing; 1999.
[66] Adnan R, Masjuki HH, Mahlia TMI. Performance and emission analysis of
hydrogen fueled compression ignition engine with variable water injection
timing. Energy 2012;43:416e26.
[67] Sendzikiene E, Makareviciene V, Janulis P. Inuence of fuel oxygen content on
diesel engine. Renew Energy 2006;31:2505e12.
[68] Glassman I, Yetter RA. Combustion. London, UK: Elsevier Inc; 2008.