Fuel 89 (2010) 2713–2720

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Impact of alcohol–gasoline fuel blends on the performance and combustion

characteristics of an SI engine
Muharrem Eyidogan, Ahmet Necati Ozsezen, Mustafa Canakci *, Ali Turkcan
Department of Automotive Engineering Technology, Kocaeli University, 41380 Izmit, Turkey
Alternative Fuels R&D Center, Kocaeli University, 41275 Izmit, Turkey

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

Article history: In this study, the effects of ethanol–gasoline (E5, E10) and methanol–gasoline (M5, M10) fuel blends on
Received 4 December 2009 the performance and combustion characteristics of a spark ignition (SI) engine were investigated. In the
Received in revised form 13 January 2010 experiments, a vehicle having a four-cylinder, four-stroke, multi-point injection system SI engine was
Accepted 26 January 2010
used. The tests were performed on a chassis dynamometer while running the vehicle at two different
Available online 6 February 2010
vehicle speeds (80 km/h and 100 km/h), and four different wheel powers (5, 10, 15, and 20 kW). The
results obtained from the use of alcohol–gasoline fuel blends were compared to those of gasoline fuel.
Keywords:
The results indicated that when alcohol–gasoline fuel blends were used, the brake specific fuel consump-
Alternative fuels
Gasoline
tion increased; cylinder gas pressure started to rise later than gasoline fuel. Almost in the all test condi-
Performance tions, the lowest peak heat release rate was obtained from the gasoline fuel use.
Combustion Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
SI engine

1. Introduction pression ratios, and so increasing thermal efficiency. Nevertheless,

Increasing global concern due to air pollution has generated
much interest in the environmental friendly alternative fuels.
Alternative fuels for internal combustion engines are also becom-
ing important because of diminishing petroleum reserves and
increasing air pollution. Methanol and ethanol are good candidates
as alternative fuels since they are liquids and have several physical
and chemical properties similar to those of gasoline and diesel
fuels. Indeed, when Henry Ford designed his first automobile
(Model T), it was built to run on both gasoline and pure ethanol
[1]. However, in the past, ethanol was not given expectancy due
to its insufficient production and high price.
Ethanol can be produced from biomass such as sugar cane, su-
gar beet, wood, corn, and other grain. The production of ethanol
from biomass sources involves fermentation and distillation of
crop [2]. Ethanol is biodegradable and will evaporate quickly if
spilled on land [3]. Methanol can be produced from natural gas,
gasification of coal or biomass. However, coal is not preferred as
a feedstock because conversion process is complex and costly than
using other feedstock in commercial methanol production [4]. Both
methanol and ethanol have much higher octane number than gas-
oline [5]. This allows to alcohol engines to have much higher com-
* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Automotive Engineering Tech-
nology, Kocaeli University, 41380 Izmit, Turkey. Tel.: +90 262 303228; fax: +90 262
3032203.
E-mail address: mustafacanakci@hotmail.com (M. Canakci).
a significant disadvantage of methanol and ethanol relative to gas-
oline is that they have lower energy content [6].
Many additives can be added to gasoline to enhance the com-
bustion efficiency and engine performance. The addition of high-
octane oxygenated fuel to gasoline is very important. Palmer [7]
stated that addition of ethanol to unleaded gasoline resulted in
an increase in research octane number by 5 units for each 10% eth-
anol addition. He also stated that 10% ethanol in gasoline as a fuel
additive improved the engine power by 5%. Brinkman et al. [8]
measured the octane number of methanol–gasoline blends. They
found that the research and motor octane numbers increased with
increasing methanol amount in the fuel blend. Hasan [9] investi-
gated the effect of ethanol–unleaded gasoline fuel blends on the
performance of an SI engine (Toyota Tercel-3A). The results
showed that when ethanol blended gasoline fuel was used, brake
power, brake thermal efficiency and volumetric efficiency in-
creased by 8.3%, 9% and 7%, while the brake specific fuel consump-
tion and air–fuel equivalence ratio decreased by 2.4% and 3.7%,
respectively. Hasan stated that 20% ethanol fuel blend (E20) gave
the best results in the engine performance. Shenghua et al. [10]
operated a three-cylinder SI engine with several fractions of meth-
anol (10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30%) in gasoline under the full load
condition. They saw that the engine power and torque decreased,
while the brake thermal efficiency improved with the methanol
fraction increase in the fuel blend.
Hsieh et al. [11] tested 10%, 20%, 30% ethanol–gasoline blends in
an SI engine. They found that using ethanol–gasoline blends

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2010.01.032
2714 M. Eyidogan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 2713–2720

Table 1
Some properties of the test fuels.

Properties Unleaded gasoline Ethanol Methanol E5 E10 M5 M10

Typical formula C6.97H14.02 C2H5OH CH3OH C6.72H13.62O0.05 C6.47H13.22O0.1 C6.67H13.52O0.05 C6.37H13.02O0.1
Density (kg/m3 at 15 °C) 750.8 809.9 796 752.8 755.4 751.9 754.1
Research octane number 95 108.6 108.7
Motor octane number 85 89.7 88.6
Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s at 40 °C) 0.494 1.221 0.596 0.497 0.572 0.529 0.545
Heating value (kJ/kg) 42.600 26.700 19.850 41.799 40.969 41.462 40.268
Heating value (MJ/m3) 31.985 21.625 15.800 31.466 30.948 31.175 30.366
Copper strip corrosion (3 h at 50 °C) No. 1A No. 1A No. 1A No. 1A No. 1A No. 1A No. 1A
Distillation (%)
Initial boiling point 45 78 64 46 46 42 43
10 54 78 64 53 53 48 48
20 62 78 64 57 54 51 51
30 71 78 64 61 57 58 55
40 82 78 64 67 61 73 60
50 96 78 64 79 66 91 81
60 113 78 64 101 74 110 108
70 131 78 64 123 110 128 127
80 146 78 65 140 135 143 144
90 168 79 65 162 160 163 165
End boiling point 207 79 66 208 207 207 206
Recovery (%) 96.0 99.2 99.2 96.8 96.7 96.4 96.4

slightly increased engine torque output and fuel consumption
compared to gasoline. Bilgin and Sezer [12] studied the effect of
methanol addition to leaded and unleaded gasoline on the engine
performance. They stated that the maximum brake mean effective
pressure (bmep) was obtained from M5 fuel blend. Abu-Zaid et al.
[13] researched the performance of an SI engine when using 3%, 6%,
9%, 12%, 15% methanol blended gasoline, and reported that the
maximum power output and the minimum brake specific fuel con-
sumption were obtained from M15 fuel blend.
Hu et al. [14] stated that start of combustion advanced and ra-
pid burning phase became shorter with the methanol addition to
gasoline. The maximum cylinder gas pressure (Pmax) of the metha-
nol–gasoline fuel blends became higher compared to pure gasoline
under the same engine speed and throttle opening. In a similar
study, Yanju et al. [15] tested three typical methanol–gasoline fuel
blends M10, M20, and M85 in an SI engine. They indicated that
Pmax increased with the increase of methanol ratio in the fuel
blend. The Pmax for M85 was 17.6% higher than that of pure gaso-
line. Meanwhile, Pmax, ignition delay and combustion duration ad-
vanced by 4–5°, 5° and 6° CA, respectively, for M85 compared to
those for gasoline.
From the literature review, it was concluded that the combus-
tion characteristics such as cylinder gas pressure and heat release
rate of an SI engine have not been investigated sufficiently when
using ethanol–gasoline and methanol–gasoline fuel blends. For
this reason, this study experimentally investigated the effects of
ethanol–gasoline and methanol–gasoline fuel blends on the perfor-
mance and combustion characteristics of an SI engine and com-
pared them with those of unleaded gasoline.
2. Materials and methods
are shown in Table 1. The tests were conducted on a vehicle, which
has a four-cylinder, four stroke, and multi-point injection system SI
engine, placed on a chassis dynamometer. Engine specifications are
shown in Table 2.
A magnetic pickup was fixed over the engine flywheel gear to
determine the crankshaft position. The cylinder gas pressure was
measured with a Kistler model 6117 BFD17 piezoelectric pressure
transducer which was mounted on the first cylinder head. A Kistler
5051A model charge amplifier was used to produce an output volt-
age proportional to the charge which was then converted to digital
signals. The cylinder gas pressure signals were recorded by a com-
puter using a digital device, Advantech PCI 1716 multifunctional
data acquisition board. The pressure data of 50 engine cycles were
collected with a resolution of 0.25° crank angle (CA). After checking
the quality of cylinder gas pressure data by using the log P-log V
plot, the data was used to calculate the heat release rate. In this
study, the heat release combustion model of Krieger and Borman
was used [19].
k dV 1 dP
Qn ¼ P þ V ð1Þ
k  1 dh k  1 dh
where k is the ratio of specific heats, h is crank angle, P is cylinder
gas pressure, and V is cylinder volume. The model assumes thermo-
dynamic equilibrium during the combustion in the cylinder, but
ignores temperature gradients, non-equilibrium conditions, pres-
sure waves, fuel vaporization, and mixing.
Air consumption was measured using a sharp edged orifice
plate (ISO 5167 (1980)) and digital manometer. Fuel consumption
was determined by weighing the fuel used for a period of time on
an electronic scale with a precision of 1 g. Two different digital
thermocouples monitored the temperatures of engine oil and
exhaust gases. The relative humidity and ambient temperature

Unleaded gasoline was blended with ethanol and methanol to

prepare four different blends on a volume basis. These are E5 (5% Table 2
ethanol + 95% unleaded gasoline), E10 (10% ethanol + 90% un- Specification of test engine.

leaded gasoline), M5 (5% methanol + 95% unleaded gasoline), and Model of engine 1.4i SI engine
M10 (10% methanol + 90% unleaded gasoline). Fuel specifications Engine type Water-cooled, four stroke, multi-point injection
of the unleaded gasoline and ethanol/methanol–gasoline blends Cylinder volume 1396 cm3
were determined in the Fuel Laboratory of Department of Automo- Compression ratio 10.4/1
tive Engineering Technology at Kocaeli University. The fuel proper- Maximum torque 130 Nm (at 4300 rpm)
Maximum power 66 kW (at 5600 rpm)
ties of pure alcohols were obtained from the manufacture
Valve number 16
companies and literature [16–18]. Some properties of the test fuels
 M. Eyidogan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 2713–2720 2715

Signal
Conditioners

Vehicle Speed and

Computer DAQ Card
Sharp-edge Power Display
Orifice Plate
Air
Exhaust Gas
Analyzers Type-K
Fuel Thermocouples
Tank

Electronic Scale
Manometer

Pressure
Transducers
Magnetic
Pick-up

Chassis D namometer

Fig. 1. The schematic of experimental setup.

Table 3
Engine torque outputs obtained in the experiments.

Vehicle speeds Wheel powers (kW)

5 10 15 20
80 km/h 15.16 Nm–3150 rpm 30.32 Nm–3150 rpm 45.48 Nm–3150 rpm 60.63 Nm–3150 rpm
100 km/h 12.09 Nm–3950 rpm 24.18 Nm–3950 rpm 36.26 Nm–3950 rpm 48.35 Nm–3950 rpm

were measured with a hygrometer. The schematic diagram of the the experimental uncertainties. The measuring instruments and
experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. experimental uncertainties are given in Table 4.
All tests were completed without any modifications on the test
engine. The tests were carried out under steady-state conditions. 3. Results and discussion
Four different wheel powers (5–20 kW with an increment of
5 kW) at two vehicle speeds (80 km/h and 100 km/h) were selected 3.1. Brake specific fuel consumption (bsfc)
for the performance tests. The wind drag power was not consid-
ered during the experiments. To prevent the confusion about the The comparison of brake specific fuel consumption (bsfc) for
engine and vehicle performance characteristics, the engine torque test fuels is shown in Fig. 2. At the vehicle speed of 80 km/h, bsfc
outputs obtained in the experiments are shown in Table 3. The en- for E5, E10, M5 and M10 increased by 2.8%, 3.6%, 0.6% and 3.3%,
gine was sufficiently warmed up at each test and the engine oil respectively, compared to those of unleaded gasoline. At the vehi-
temperature was maintained at 70–80 °C. The engine was allowed cle speed of 100 km/h, bsfc for E5, E10, M5 and M10 increased by
to run for a few minutes until it reached to steady-state condition, 0.2%, 1.5%, 1.1% and 1.2%, respectively.
and then, the data were collected subsequently. The tests were re- As seen in the figure, at the vehicle speed of 100 km/h, bsfc for
peated three times and average values were presented to reduce gasoline at the wheel powers of 10 kW and 15 kW is lower than
that of E5, E10, M5 and M10. However, the maximum bsfc was ob-
Table 4 tained at the 5 kW and 20 kW wheel powers in the gasoline test.
The measuring instruments and experimental uncertainties. Indeed, these upwards in bsfc with the use of E5, E10, M5 and
Measurements Uncertainties (%)
M10 are normal due to the lower energy content of the alcohols.
As seen in Table 1, the heating value of ethanol or methanol is
Power monitoring ±2.4
Speed measuring ±2.5
lower than that of gasoline, both on a mass basis and on a volume
Pressure sensor ±1.5 basis. This means that the engine needs a higher fuel amount of
Fuel consumption (mass) ±2.4 ethanol or methanol to produce the same wheel power in a
Air consumption (volume) ±1.8 gasoline fueled engine. Thus, use of ethanol–gasoline or metha-
Relative humidity ±1.7
nol–gasoline fuel blends resulted a slightly increasing in the fuel
Temperature ±2.4
consumption compared to the use of unleaded gasoline. Although
2716 M. Eyidogan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 2713–2720

1100 1100

Brake spesific fuel consumption (g/kWh)

Brake spesific fuel consumption (g/kWh)

1000
80 km/h Gasoline 1000 100 km/h
E5
900 E10 900
M5
800 800
M10
700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Wheel Power (kW) Wheel Power (kW)

28 28

26 80 km/h 26
100 km/h
Brake Thermal efficiency (%)
Brake Thermal efficiency (%)

24 24

22 22

20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Wheel Power (kW) Wheel Power (kW)

Fig. 2. Comparison of bsfc and brake thermal efficiency for the test fuels at the vehicle speeds of 80 km/h and 100 km/h.

Table 5
The volumetric efficiencies obtained for the test fuels at the vehicle speeds of 80 km/h and 100 km/h.

Wheel power (kW) at the vehicle speed of 80 km/h Wheel power (kW) at the vehicle speed of 100 km/h
Test fuel 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Gasoline 29.48 40.89 44.88 53.33 31.94 32.09 39.75 49.91
E5 29.78 35.57 43.08 53.45 28.79 33.49 39.88 48.07
E10 29.48 35.55 43.89 51.44 28.51 33.65 39.75 47.05
M5 26.91 33.15 41.84 51.46 26.75 32.82 39.91 45.97
M10 26.05 34.61 41.88 52.83 28.22 32.74 39.43 46.62

methanol has lower heating value than ethanol, it was observed 100 km/h test condition. This situation can be explained with the
that bsfc for M5 was lower than that of E5 and the bsfc for M10 intake valve which remains open shorter in time at high-speed
was lower than that of E10. Methanol has more oxygen rate than and decreasing the amount of air entering the system.
that of ethanol. More oxygen causes to increase in combustion effi-
ciency, and this reduces bsfc. 3.2. Brake thermal efficiency
For all test fuels, the bsfc values started to decrease with the
increasing wheel power in both vehicle speeds. The reason for As shown in Fig. 2, brake thermal efficiency increased with the
the decrease in bsfc is the increase in the volumetric efficiency increasing wheel power at the both vehicle speeds. The main rea-
and combustion efficiency. The volumetric efficiencies obtained son for this situation is the decrease in bsfc. At the vehicle speed of
in the experiments are shown in Table 5. When the volumetric effi- 100 km/h, the increases in thermal efficiencies of E5, E10, M5 and
ciency at 100 km/h test condition is compared with that of 80 km/h M10 are 1.9%, 2.5%, 1.8% and 4.7%, respectively, compared to un-
test condition, it is seen that volumetric efficiency decreased at leaded gasoline. At the vehicle speed of 80 km/h, except E5, the in-
 M. Eyidogan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 2713–2720 2717

creases in thermal efficiencies for E10, M5 and M10 are 0.4%, 2.2% increases. Moreover, the vaporization of the fuel also continues
and 2.5%, respectively. There is a reduction of 0.8% in the thermal in the compression stroke when the latent heat of vaporization in-
efficiency for E5 when compared to unleaded gasoline. This is be- creases [9]. Since the fuel absorbs heat from the cylinder during the
cause E10, M5 and M10 fuel blends have more oxygen rate than vaporization, the necessity work for compressing the air–fuel mix-
E5, the combustion becomes better and so the thermal efficiency ture decreases and this situation increases the thermal efficiency.

700 750
Gasoline 80 km/h 100 km/h
695
Exhaust gas temperature ( C)

Exhaust gas temperature ( C)

E5
o

o
E10
690 740
M5
M10
685

680
730
675

670
720
665

660
710
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Wheel Power (kW) Wheel Power (kW)

Fig. 3. Comparison of exhaust gas temperature for the test fuels at the vehicle speeds of 80 km/h and 100 km/h.

4.0 4.0
Gasoline
Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)
Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

3.5 5 kW 3.5 10 kW
E5
E10
3.0 3.0
M5
M10
2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

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

o o
Crank angle ( ) Crank angle ( )

4.0 4.0
Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

3.5 3.5
15 kW 20 kW
3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

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

o o
Crank angle ( ) Crank angle ( )

Fig. 4. Comparison of cylinder gas pressures for the test fuels at the vehicle speed of 80 km/h.
2718 M. Eyidogan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 2713–2720

3.3. Exhaust gas temperature
Exhaust gas temperature changes proportionally with the max-
imum cylinder temperature. As seen in Table 1, ethanol and meth-
anol have higher latent heat of vaporization than that of gasoline.
The adiabatic flame temperatures of ethanol and methanol are
lower than that of gasoline because ethanol and methanol absorbs
more heat from the cylinder during the vaporization [20]. The
change in the exhaust gas temperature at the vehicle speeds and
different wheel powers can be seen in Fig. 3.
The decreases in exhaust gas temperatures for E5, E10, M5 and
M10 at the vehicle speed of 80 km/h are 0.2%, 0.5%, 1.6% and 1.1%,
respectively, when compared to unleaded gasoline. At the vehicle
speed of 100 km/h, the decreases in exhaust gas temperatures for
E5, E10, M5 and M10 are 0.3%, 1%, 1.4% and 1.1%, respectively. As
mentioned above, the main reason of this reduction is that ethanol
and methanol have higher latent heat of vaporization than that of
gasoline. Also, as will be explained later, the heat release of gaso-
line started to rise earlier than those of the blends, in terms of
crank angle. Heat release curves of the alcohol fuels extended to
opening time of the exhaust valve, when compared to that of gas-
oline. This situation can be explained with the reason of the ex-
haust gas temperature of gasoline being higher than those of the
blends. Besides, the extra air is taken into the cylinder to obtain
the same wheel power output which partially reduces the exhaust
gas temperature since bsfc of the each blend is higher than that of
the gasoline. Maximum exhaust gas temperatures were obtained
at the maximum power of 20 kW at the vehicle speed of 100 km/h
for each test fuel.
3.4. Cylinder gas pressure
The combustion characteristics of the methanol or ethanol
blends can be compared with gasoline by means of cylinder gas
pressure and heat release rate. Fig. 4 and 5 show comparisons of
the cylinder gas pressures for the test fuels at the vehicle speeds
of 80 km/h and 100 km/h, respectively.
As seen in the figures, for both vehicle speeds, the cylinder gas
pressure with the use of pure gasoline began to increase earlier
than fuel blends. Especially at 5 kW and 20 kW wheel powers, this
difference shows itself very significantly. Furthermore, Pmax for all
test fuels occurred closer to top dead center (TDC). At 10 kW,
15 kW and 20 kW wheel powers where the engine runs more sta-
ble, the cylinder gas pressure of gasoline is wider than ethanol–
gasoline and methanol–gasoline fuel blends. The reason for this
may be explained with the longer combustion duration of gasoline.
Another case, the cylinder gas pressure increased with the increas-
ing wheel power. The reason for this may be explained with the
increasing amount of fuel, injected into the cylinder, and volumet-
ric efficiency. At the vehicle speed of 80 km/h, Pmax was obtained
from the use of pure gasoline at 10 kW, 15 kW, and 20 kW wheel
powers and it was obtained with the use of M10 at 5 kW wheel

4.5 4.5
Gasoline 10 kW
4.0
Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

E5 5 kW 4.0
Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

3.5 E10 3.5

M5
3.0 3.0
M10
2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

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

o o
Crank angle ( ) Crank angle ( )

4.5 4.5

4.0 4.0
15 kW 20 kW
Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

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

o o
Crank angle ( ) Crank angle ( )

Fig. 5. Comparison of cylinder gas pressures for the test fuels at the vehicle speed of 100 km/h.
 M. Eyidogan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 2713–2720 2719

0.06 0.06

0.05
Gasoline 0.05
E5
E10

Heat release rate (kJ/o)

Heat release rate (kJ/o)

0.04 0.04
M5
0.03 M10 0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00
5 kW 10 kW
-0.01 -0.01
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Crank angle (o) Crank angle (o)
0.06 0.06

0.05 0.05

Heat release rate (kJ/o)

Heat release rate (kJ/o)

0.04 0.04

0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00
15 kW 20 kW
-0.01 -0.01
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Crank angle (o) Crank angle (o)

Fig. 6. Comparison of heat release rates for the test fuels at the vehicle speed of 80 km/h.

power. At the vehicle speed of 100 km/h, Pmax was obtained with For the all test fuels, heat release rate takes place in the areas
the use of pure gasoline at 5 kW, and 20 kW and it was obtained close to TDC with the increasing wheel power. The lowest peak
with the use of M5 at 10 kW, 15 kW wheel powers. heat release rate occurred in the gasoline use at 100 km/h and all
wheel powers. The reason for this situation is incomplete combus-
tion because the fuel may not have enough time to be burned at
3.5. Heat release rate high vehicle speed.

Heat release calculations are an attempt to get some information

about the combustion process in an engine. Heat release rate is used
in both engine performance influences in various operating condi-
tions and same engine performances under the equal conditions
[21]. Moreover, physical and chemical properties of the fuel used
in internal combustion engines are one of the main parameters
which affect the heat release rate. Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show the heat re-
lease rates of the test fuels in different wheel powers versus crank
angle at the vehicle speeds of 80 km/h and 100 km/h, respectively.
As seen in the figures, except 5 kW, 80 km/h test condition, the
heat release rate for gasoline fuel began to rise earlier than that of
alcohol–gasoline fuel blends at the both vehicle speeds. And also,
the peak locations of heat release rate of alcohol–gasoline blends
are wider than that of pure gasoline. The main reason for this is
thought that ethanol and methanol have single boiling point, due
to having one type of hydrocarbon. The secondary reason for this
situation; the alcohol fuels which contain oxygen in their struc-
tures improve combustion and a large amount of fuel burn takes
place in the areas close to TDC.
4. Conclusion
In this study, it was seen that when a vehicle was fueled with
ethanol–gasoline (E5, E10) and methanol–gasoline (M5, M10) fuel
blends, bsfc will be higher than that of pure gasoline. Indeed, these
results are expected because the heating values of the alcohols are
37–53% lower than that of unleaded gasoline. At the same time,
low heating value of alcohols led to lower exhaust temperatures
at both vehicle speeds. At the vehicle speed of 80 km/h, while Pmax
was obtained with the use of pure gasoline at 10 kW, 15 kW, and
20 kW wheel powers, it was obtained from M10 at 5 kW wheel
power. At the vehicle speed of 100 km/h, while Pmax was obtained
from the use of pure gasoline at 5 and 20 kW wheel powers, it was
obtained from M5 at the 10 kW and 15 kW wheel powers. The cyl-
inder gas pressure increased with the increasing wheel power at
both vehicle speeds. The lowest peak heat release rate occurred
in pure gasoline test at the both vehicle speeds and all wheel pow-
ers. When pure gasoline was used, heat release rate started to rise
2720 M. Eyidogan et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 2713–2720

0.06 0.06

Gasoline
0.05 0.05
E5

Heat release rate (kJ/o)

E10
Heat release rate (kJ/o)

0.04 0.04
M5
0.03
M10 0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00
5 kW 10 kW
-0.01 -0.01
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Crank angle (o) Crank angle (o)

0.06 0.06

0.05 0.05
Heat release rate (kJ/o)

0.04 0.04
Heat release rate (kJ/o)

0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00
15 kW 20 kW
-0.01 -0.01
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Crank angle (o) Crank angle (o)

Fig. 7. Comparison of heat release rates for the test fuels at the vehicle speed of 100 km/h.

earlier than those of alcohol–gasoline fuel blends. The peak loca-
tions of heat release rate of alcohol–gasoline blends were wider
than that of pure gasoline.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Scientific Research Foundation
of Kocaeli University (Project No: 2006/25). The authors would like
to thank the individuals at the engine test laboratory who were in-
volved in making this work possible.
References
[1] Sward K. The legend of Henry Ford. 1st ed. New York: Rinehart; 1948.
[2] Demirbas A. A realistic fuel alternative for diesel engines. London: Springer;
2008.
[3] Speidel HK, Ahmed I. Biodegradability characteristics of current and newly
developed alternative fuels. SAE Paper 1999; No. 1999-01-3518.
[4] Kumabe K, Fujimoto S, Yanagida T, Ogata M, Fukuda T, Yabe A, Minowa T.
Environmental and economic analysis of methanol production process via
biomass gasification. Fuel 2008;87:1422–7.
[5] Silva R, Cataluna R, Menezes EW, Samios D, Piatnicki CMS. Effect of additives
on the antiknock properties and Reid vapor pressure of gasoline. Fuel
2005;84:951–9.
[6] Raveendran K, Ganesh A. Heating value of biomass and biomass pyrolysis
products. Fuel 1996;75:1715–20.
[7] Palmer FH. Vehicle performance of gasoline containing oxygenates. MI MechE
1986; C319/86: 33–46.
[8] Brinkman ND, Galloupoulous NE, Jackson MW. Exhaust emissions, fuel
economy, and driveability of vehicles fueled with alcohol–gasoline blends.
SAE Paper 1975; No. 750120.
[9] Al-Hasan M. Effect of ethanol–unleaded gasoline blends on engine
performance and exhaust emission. Energ Conv Manage 2003;44:1547–61.
[10] Liu S, Clemente ERC, Hu T, Wei Y. Study of spark ignition engine fueled with
methanol/gasoline fuel blends. Appl Therm Eng 2007;27:1904–10.
[11] Hsieh WD, Chen RH, Wu TL, Lin TH. Engine performance and pollutant
emission of an SI engine using ethanol–gasoline blended fuels. Atmos Env
2002;36:403–10.
[12] Bilgin A, Sezer I. Effects of methanol addition to gasoline on the performance
and fuel cost of a spark ignition engine. Energ Fuel 2008;22:2782–8.
[13] Abu-Zaid M, Bardan O, Yamin J. Effect of methanol addition on the
performance of spark ignition engines. Energ Fuel 2004;18:312–5.
[14] Hu T, Wei Y, Liu S, Zhou L. Improvement of spark-ignition (SI) engine
combustion and emission during cold start, fueled with methanol/gasoline
blends. Energ Fuel 2007;21:171–5.
[15] Yanju W, Shenghua L, Hongsong L, Rui Y, Jie L, Ying W. Effects of methanol/
gasoline blends on a spark ignition engine performance and emissions. Energ
Fuel 2008;22:1254–9.
[16] Sayin C, Hosoz M, Canakci M, Kilicaslan I. Energy and exergy analyses of a
gasoline engine. IJER 2007;31:259–73.
[17] Hunwartzen I. Modification of CFR test engine unit to determine octane
numbers of pure alcohols and gasoline-alcohol blends. SAE Paper 1982; No.
820002.
[18] Alcohols and ethers. American Petroleum Institute, API Publication 4261; July
1988.
[19] Krieger RB, Borman GL. The computation of applied heat release for internal
combustion engines. ASME Paper 1966; No. 66-WA/DGP-4.
[20] Turns SR. An introduction to combustion-concepts and applications. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 2000.
[21] Ghojel J, Honnery D. Heat release model for the combustion of diesel oil
emulsions in DI diesel engines. Appl Therm Eng 2005;25:2072–85.