Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2020, Vol. 12(7) 1–13
Ó The Author(s) 2020
Effect of different levels of ethanol DOI: 10.1177/1687814020943356
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
addition on performance, emission,
and combustion characteristics of a
gasoline engine

Hasan Köten1 , Yasin Karagöz1 and Özgün Balcı2

Abstract
In this study, a four-stroke, naturally aspirated, single-cylinder, spark ignition engine was operated with neat gasoline fuel.
In-cylinder pressure, performance, and emission values were obtained at full load and 2400-r/min constant engine speed.
Using these values, a single-dimensional theoretical model was calibrated. A Kistler spark plug–type pressure sensor was
used to obtain in-cylinder pressure. After validation of this single-dimensional theoretical model obtained by the help of
a commercial engine analysis software (AVL-Boost), different levels of ethanol addition (2.5%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%)
into gasoline were analyzed and compared with neat gasoline fueled conditions. According to obtained results, NOx
emissions increased with incremental amount of ethanol. The CO and total hydrocarbons emissions decreased; how-
ever, they can be controlled using after-treatment systems such as three-way catalyst.

Keywords
Ethanol, NOx, in-cylinder pressure, CO, heat release rate

Date received: 11 January 2020; accepted: 29 June 2020

Handling Editor: James Baldwin

Introduction ethanol to be used in light-duty vehicles up to 15% by

volume (E15) in addition to gasoline.4
At the present time, considerable amount of the energy While some researchers experiment with gasoline
requirement, especially in transportation, is provided and gasoline–ethanol mixtures up to high ethanol
from fossil fuels. Sources being limited and emissions rates,2 many researchers argue that low ethanol rates
which are harmful to human health that are generated are more advantageous in terms of performance and
by fossil fuels caused researchers to focus on alternative emission characteristics.1,5,6 Zhang and Sarathy7 found
energy sources including ethanol.
Alcohol-based fuels or additives such as ethanol are
preferred since they are renewable and can be easily 1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Istanbul
mixed with conventional fuels.1 Being one of the fuels
Medeniyet University, Goztepe, Kadikoy, Istanbul, Turkey
that can be produced from natural and renewable 2
Mechanical Engineering Department, Automotive Division, Yildiz
sources,2 ethanol is thought to have a role in reducing Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
proportion of fossil fuel used in transportation. In
addition, having a higher flame speed in comparison to Corresponding author:
Yasin Karagöz, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering
gasoline, ethanol is predicted to provide increase in Faculty, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Goztepe, Kadikoy, Istanbul 34000,
thermal efficiency by improving combustion.3 The US Turkey.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work
without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

that 32% ethanol addition provides the highest CO2 studies where the spray amount is not increased, etha-
reduction among E0–E40 ethanol proportion range. nol makes the mixture leaner providing a significantly
Low stoichiometric ratio of ethanol causes the stoi- reduced CO emission, especially with rich mixtures.8
chiometric ratio to decrease with increasing ethanol in Studies have reported that more complete combus-
fuel. In cases where amount of fuel sprayed in the fuel tion caused by increased oxygen content with ethanol
system by an adjustment is not increased, ethanol supplement reduces total hydrocarbons (THC) emis-
increase causes fuel mixture to become leaner.8 Due to sion.11 In addition, in studies where the compression
this depletion of fuel and low energy content of ethanol, ratio was increased by taking advantage of the high
the results obtained in some studies in the literature octane number of ethanol, it was observed that the
have shown a decrease in peak pressure and tempera- increased cylinder temperatures decreased THC and
tures in-cylinder.1,9 It has been concluded that pressure CO.2,16
and temperature increase in-cylinder as ethanol content There is often a consensus in the literature that the
increases in the experiments realized under constant air ethanol addition reduces CO emissions with its low car-
excess coefficient condition.5 When high flammability bon content and more complete combustion due to its
range and relatively high adiabatic flame speed of etha- oxygen content.3 However, some researchers have
nol is considered, the reason of higher maximum pres-
reported that decreasing in-cylinder temperature and
sure and heat release rate (HRR) values closed to top
dead center (TDC) can be explained by combustion incomplete combustion increases THC emissions due to
completed in a shorter period of time. This effect leads its lower heating value and high heat of evaporation.13
combustion to be completed faster and cycle to show NOx emission formation contains complex mechan-
closer characteristics to ideal constant volume combus- isms such as thermal NOx, prompt NOx, intermediate
tion and maximum pressure values to increase and effi- N2O, and fuel NOx.3 The resulting oxides of nitrogen
ciency to improve.5,10 are formed from nitrogen and oxygen in the atmo-
Lower stoichiometric ratio of ethanol allows to burn sphere and in general, the most important parameter
more fuel mass with the same amount of air, while affecting the amount and the formation is the tempera-
lower vapor pressure and higher heat of evaporation of ture. For ethanol–gasoline blends, thermal NOx forma-
ethanol increases volumetric efficiency with increasing tion is a dominant mechanism.3
ethanol content.11 Hence, for the same cylinder volume, In the literature, there are different opinions and
more amount of fuel mass can be taken and burned obtained results about ethanol ratio increase in gasoline
efficiently thanks to higher flame speed of ethanol. on the effect of NOx.3 According to the results of some
These effects provide slight increase in engine power, researchers, NOx formation decreases due to the high
torque, indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP), as evaporation heat of ethanol causes the falling in-
mentioned by some researchers.2,10–13 cylinder temperatures.18 According to some research-
Low energy content of ethanol per unit mass causes ers, NOx emission depends on the operating conditions
an increase in specific fuel consumption. However, of the engine rather than the ethanol rate.6 However, in
ethanol can provide lower specific energy consumption cases where engine and ignition advance are not modi-
in spite of higher specific fuel consumption.9 Li et al.13 fied, it is reported by Dai et al.19 and Li et al.13 who
analyzed the specific energy consumption in their study compared ethanol and gasoline and by Costa et al.12
and concluded that ethanol reduced indicated specific who compared ethanol and ethanol-gasoline mixture in
energy consumption (ISEC). Iodice et al.14 also calcu- their studies that ethanol causes lower THC and CO,
lated energy consumption in kJ/km at a driving cycle. higher NOx emission. In study of Stump et al.20 who
They found decreasing energy consumption trend with performed tests on different vehicles at cruise cycles, it
increase in ethanol content while fuel consumption is found that HC and CO emissions decrease with etha-
increases. This result is due to the indicated thermal nol addition while NOx emissions mostly increase.
efficiency, which increases with the burning time shor- Despite not being as dominant as the temperature
tened due to the high flame rate. effect, the oxygen concentration in the environment
High octane number and heat of evaporation of also shows an effect that increases NOx formation.21
ethanol also improve knock resistance of engine.1,15 Hence, oxygenates of fuel show increasing effect on
Using this feature, which increases the knock resistance, NOx, while they decrease CO and HC emissions.3,22,23
in some studies where the ignition advance and com- It is estimated that combustion completed in less time
pression ratio of the spark ignition (SI) engines are by virtue of high flame speed allows less reversible reac-
increased, significant improvements in performance val- tions, thus resulting in more NOx emissions, since for-
ues such as efficiency and power have been achieved.16 ward and reverse NOx reactions have different rate
Low carbon content of ethanol reduces CO emis- coefficients depending on temperature and NOx forma-
sion. Moreover, one of the most dominant parameters tions freeze early in the expansion stroke.24 Moreover,
affecting CO emissions is the air excess coefficient.17 In Iodice et al.14 observed that ethanol addition
Köten et al. 3

Table 1. Properties comparison of ethanol and gasoline.3

Property Unit Gasoline Ethanol

Chemical formula 2 C5–C12 C2H5OH

Molecular weight kg/kmol 114.15 46.07
C fraction mass% 87.4 52.2
H fraction mass% 12.6 13
O fraction mass% 0 34.7
H/C atom ration 1.795 3
O/C atom ration 0 0.5
Density (at 15°C) kg/m3 750–765 785–809.9
Stoichiometric air–fuel ratio W/W 14.2–15.1 8.97
Reid vapor pressure (at 37.8°C) kPa 53–60 17
Research octane number 2 91–100 108.61–110
Motor octane number 2 82–92 92
Cetane number 2 8 5–20
Lower heating value kJ/kg 44,000 26,900
Auto ignition temperature °C 257 425
Vapor flammability limits vol% 0.6–8 3.5–15
Laminar flame speed (100 kPa, 325 K) cm/s 33 39

considerably improves cold-start emissions during their highly depend on engine features and operating condi-
driving cycle tests with gasoline and E10, E20, and E30 tions. In this study, validation was performed between
blends. the data from a single-cylinder SI engine and a one-
Particulate number (PN) emission is also a concern dimensional (1D) model created in AVL Boost soft-
especially for gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines.25 ware. Afterward, this model is used to compare gaso-
In spite of cooling effect with high heat of evaporation, line and gasoline–ethanol blends at different ratios in
adequate proportion of ethanol addition has reducing terms of emissions and performance at constant engine
effect on PN emissions since containing –OH bonds speed.
contribute to the oxidation of soot precursors.25 Leach Benefiting from high octane number of ethanol,
et al.26 investigated E20, E85, and GEM (a blend of except for cases where compression ratio or ignition
gasoline, ethanol, and methanol) in a highly boosted advance are increased,16 performance values (power,
GDI engine at different operating conditions in terms moment, efficiency, etc.)5 of ethanol compounds with
of engine speed, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) rate, low rate are more advantageous in terms of emission
exhaust back pressure (EBP), air–fuel ratio (AFR), values like HC and CO8,28 compared to gasoline.
brake mean effective pressure (BMEP), and ignition Moreover, usage of ethanol mixtures with low rate
advance. However, they concluded that E85 PN emis- between 3% and 10%29 or up to 24%30 is supported
sion values were very low for all operating conditions, for a long time over many regions of the world. Low
while E20 values were slightly or significantly higher ethanol rates can be used without any need for modifi-
than that of base fuel depending on operation cation in a standard SI engine and is more advanta-
conditions. geous at cold start.28 Taking all these advantages of
Sakai and Rothamer27 conducted their experimental ethanol in consideration, E2.5, E5, E10, E15, E20
study by sending premixed and pre-vaporized gasoline gasoline–ethanol mixtures are observed in this study.
and ethanol mixture to the engine, due to the physical Stoichiometry condition is targeted in terms of catalyst
mixture of ethanol and gasoline in the liquid phase efficiency in three-way catalyst engines that are fre-
being problematic. They investigated the effect of quently used in emission reduction.14 In this study, the
equivalence ratio change and ethanol amount on the results were obtained by preserving the stoichiometric
soot formation. As conclusion, the increase in the etha- condition regardless of the ethanol content.
nol ratio observed that causes less soot formation at
the same equivalence ratio.
As can be seen in Table 1, ethanol is used as an addi-
Material and methods
tional fuel because of its properties like high adiabatic As shown in Figure 1, the test engine is loaded by an 8-
flame speed, low carbon ratio, and higher octane num- kW AC dynamometer which it was connected to. And
ber compared to gasoline. Although in literature there pressure, fuel consumption, and emission measure-
are many research studies about ethanol, the subject is ments were collected for the post process to be
still open to be developed, since some characteristics performed.
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 1. Schematic view of test setup.

Experimental process was carried out at 2400-r/min specific emission values can be calculated by the help of
engine speed. Both experimental setup and theoretical method announced by The Mechanical Engineering
models are built for the purpose of operating at stoi- Industry Association (VDMA) exhaust emission legis-
chiometric conditions for neat gasoline and gasoline– lation for diesel and gas engines, which is a guide
ethanol blends. Stoichiometric AFRs of the gasoline explaining how to represent emission values measured
and ethanol were assumed as 14.6 and 8.97, respec- as base and describing the execution of emission calcu-
tively. The tests were conducted at Yildiz Technical lations in different regulations in line with the existing
University, Internal Combustion Engines Laboratory. standards, such as equations (14), (15) in section ‘‘Data
reduction.’’31

Experimental setup
The tests were conducted on a 270-cc, Honda, single-
Engine specs and dynamometer features
cylinder, air-cooled SI engine. The engine is loaded by Experiments were executed with a 270-cc, single-cylin-
an 8-kW AC dynamometer with external resistive load der, four-stroke, air-cooled, naturally aspirated SI
banks. engine. In order to load the test engine, 8-kW AC
Pressure data were obtained by the use of a Kistler dynamometer was used with external resistive load
6118B in-cylinder pressure transducer, which acts as a banks. Further information about the test engine and
spark plug as well. Data collecting by this transducer dynamometer is shown in Table 2.
were sent to Kistler Kibox combustion analyzer device
for processing. In order to obtain engine speed and
crank angle position information, an incremental-type Modeling of SI engine
encoder was used. AVL boost software was used for modeling of a single-
A miniature oval gear–type fuel flow meter was cylinder, naturally aspirated, four-stroke SI engine. In
installed to the fuel line in order to determine fuel con- the model, NOx emissions were calculated based on the
sumption of the engine. An AVL Digas 4000 device was Pattas and Haftner calculation techniques, which are
used for the purpose of measuring exhaust emissions. performed with the consideration and the extension of
Measurement of mass flow rate of intake air was car- six Zeldovich equations. CO emission was obtained
ried out by the help of a mass flow meter. Afterward, based on Onorati method, which is widely used for
collected data were transferred to personal computer zero-dimensional (0D) and 1D software in the litera-
for post-processing. ture. HC emissions were calculated with D’errico model
Since emission measurements were carried out and which is the most commonly used model in SI engines.
flow rates of gasoline and intake air were obtained, For HC formation, contributions of crevice and HC
Köten et al. 5

Table 2. Engine specs and dynamometer features. Data reduction

Engine specifications In order to execute performance, combustion, and
emission analysis, measured data collected via transdu-
Engine manufacturer Honda cers and simulation results were used in calculations.
Number of cylinders 1
Equations are shown in this section.
Compression ratio 8.5:1
Cooling Air Indicated engine power equation can be obtained as
Bore 3 stroke (mm) 77 3 58 shown in equation (2)34 by the help of indicated engine
Cylinder volume (cm3) 270 work, calculated as in equation (1)34
Net power (kW) 6.3/3600 r/min
Recommended speed range (r/min) 2000–3500 ð
720
Aspiration Natural PdV
Wi = Pmi VH = ð1Þ
1000
Dynamometer features 0
Power (kVA) (kW) 8 Wi 3 n
Ni = ð2Þ
60 3 2
where Wi is indicated engine work per cycle (kJ), Pmi is
mean indicated pressure (Pa), VH is cylinder displace-
ment (m3), P is measured in-cylinder pressure (Pa), V is
calculated instant cylinder volume (m3), Ni is indicated
engine power (kW), and n is the engine speed (r/min).
By the use of indicated engine power value, indicated
engine torque can be calculated as given in equation
(3)15

60
Mi = Ni ð3Þ
2pn
where Ni is indicated engine power (kW) and n is the
engine velocity (r/min).
IMEP (MPa) value can be obtained as in equation
(4)
Figure 2. The schematic view of the SI engine model.
4p
IMEP = Mi ð4Þ
VH
absorption, desorption mechanisms, and partial/incom- where VH is engine swept volume (cm3).
plete combustion effects were considered.32 Created 1D Ethanol energy content of fuel can be calculated
engine model is depicted in Figure 2. Vibe 2 Zone 0D using volume ratios and lower heating values of gaso-
combustion model was also used as a part of the engine line and ethanol in the form of equation (5)15
model.
After validation of the gasoline-fueled SI engine n_ e re LHVe
EER = 3 100 ð5Þ
model by comparing the experimental data from tests, n_ e re LHVe + n_ g rg LHVg
the model was configured for gasoline–ethanol fuel
blend operation conditions. Gasoline and ethanol fuels where EER is ethanol energy ratio in fuel blend (%); n_ e
were chosen for simulations from Classic Species Setup and n_ g are volume flow rate of ethanol and gasoline,
of AVL Boost which is used by software in order to cal- respectively (m3/s), which can be obtained using flow
culate combustion kinetics and intermediate reactions rate of total fuel and volume ratios of gasoline and
during combustion and hence emissions. The para- ethanol in fuel; re and rg are densities of ethanol and
meters of the engine model and Vibe 2 Zone combus- gasoline, respectively (kg/m3); LHVg and LHVe are
tion model used in the present study were determined lower heating values of gasoline and ethanol, respec-
by the help of experimental data of gasoline operation. tively (kJ/kg).
In other respects, Vibe parameters used for ethanol fuel AFR of eventual fuel blend (gasoline + ethanol)
simulations have been previously determined by studies can be calculated using equation (6) written as follows35
with similar engine geometry by considering ignition
n_ air rair
delay and combustion duration of different gasoline– l= ð6Þ
ethanol fractions.33 n_ e re AFst, e + n_ g rg AFst, g
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

where l is AFR of fuel blend; n_ air and rair are air flow The parameters of Vibe function are approximated
rate and density, respectively; AFst, e and AFst, g are stoi- also using mass fraction burned equation of Vibe.
chiometric AFRs of gasoline and ethanol, respectively. While tests were executed, exhaust emissions were
Performance characteristics can be analyzed using of measured using gas analyzer by volume. Mass flow rate
calculated indicated engine power value and measured of total exhaust gases can be given in the form of equa-
pressure and flow rate values. tion (14) by adding measured flow rate of intake air
Total ISEC can be derived as shown in equation (7) and consumed fuel.31 Hence, specific emissions can be
calculated as seen in equation (15)31
m_ g LHVg + m_ e LHVe 3600
ISEC = ð7Þ
Ni 106 m_ exh = m_ air + m_ g + m_ e ð14Þ
where ISEC is indicated specific energy consumption of Mi m_ exh
EPi = EVi 3 3 ð15Þ
SI engine (MJ/kW h); m_ g and m_ e are gasoline and etha- Mexh Ni
nol mass flow rates, respectively (kg/s).
Indicated thermal efficiency of the engine was where m_ exh and m_ air are mass flow rates of exhaust gases
reached using unit conversion of ISEC as seen in equa- and intake air, respectively (g/h); EPi is specific emis-
tion (8) sion value of relevant gases (g/kW h); EVi is relevant
gases amount in proportion to total exhaust gases (by
1 3600 volume for CO and by particle count for THC and
ITE = 3 3 100 ð8Þ
ISEC 1000 NOx); and Mi and Mexh are molar mass of relevant gases
and exhaust gases, respectively (kg/kmol).
where ITE is indicated thermal efficiency of the test
Kline and McClintock analysis38 determined the
engine by %.
total propagated uncertainty of the Precision and
Cylinder volume can be calculated as given in equa-
Systematic (Bias) errors measurement as seen in equa-
tion (9) below36
tion (16)
VH h u i
"
V= ð1  cos aÞ + ð1  cos 2aÞ + Vmin ð9Þ 2  2  2 #12
2 4 ∂R ∂R ∂R
ðWR ÞP, B = w1 + w2 +  + wn
∂x1 ∂x2 ∂xn
where a is crank position (rad), u is crank radius-
connecting rod length ratio, and Vmin is minimum cylin- ð16Þ
der volume when piston at top death center.
Rate of heat release was obtained as given in equa- Hence, the total uncertainty WR is computed with equa-
tion (10)37 tion (17)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k dV k dP WR = ðWR Þ2P + ðWR Þ2B ð17Þ
Q_ = P + V ð10Þ
k  1 du k  1 du
where Q_ is HRR (J/°CA) and k is polytrophic index of where (WR )P, B denotes the propagated uncertainty for
working mixture. This equation was used in order to either precision error (WR )P or systematic (Bias) error
obtain normalized HRR values from experimental (WR )B functions. x1, x2, ..., xn are the measured vari-
pressure data, and normalized values were given in the ables, and w1, w2, ..., wn are the corresponding uncer-
article. tainties of the variables.
HRR values were obtained using Vibe function as Measurement accuracies of the experiments and the
shown in equations (11)–(13)32 calculated uncertainties are given in Table 3.
Uncertainties of the numerical model are not investi-
dx a ðm + 1Þ gated since it is not possible to see the entire equation
= ðm + 1Þym eay ð11Þ running in the background thoroughly.
da Dac
dQ
dx = ð12Þ
Q Test procedure
a  a0
y= ð13Þ In this study, experimental and simulated results were
Dac examined, respectively, as follows:
where Q is total fuel heat input, a is crank angle, a0
is crank angle at the beginning of combustion, Dac is  Emissions and performance values were mea-
combustion duration, m is shape parameter, and a is sured with a 270-cc, single-cylinder SI engine,
Vibe parameter which is equal to 6.9 for complete under the condition of constant engine speed,
combustion. using neat gasoline fuel at stoichiometry, and
Köten et al. 7

Table 3. Measurement accuracies and the calculated

uncertainties.

Parameter Device Accuracy

Engine speed Incremental 6 5 r/min

encoder
In-cylinder pressure Kistler 6118B 6 0.3 bar
Gasoline flow rate Biotech VZS-005 6 1% (of reading)
CO AVL Digas 4000 0.01% Vol.
THC AVL Digas 4000 1 ppm
NOx AVL Digas 4000 1 ppm
Calculated results Uncertainty value
Indicated specific energy consumption 6 0.68% O 0.79%

necessary abovementioned calculations were

made.
Figure 3. Comparison of experimental and simulation results
 Engine tests were calculated as 2400 r/min under
of in-cylinder pressure.
the intermediate speed condition (75% power)
as stated in ISO 8187 and Directive 2013/53 EU,
and executed at the operating point under these Figure 3, the experimental and model pressure data
conditions. overlap on a large scale.
 Tested engine’s model was created with the help As seen in Figure 3, high relative difference between
of AVL Boost software under the conditions of theoretical and experimental in-cylinder pressure varia-
2400-r/min engine speed and at stoichiometry. tions observed during intake stroke and beginning of
The results provided from simulation, results compression stroke. It is assumed not to be caused by
and calculations provided from tests were com- numerical model but experimental data, since expected
pared, and model was validated. pressure values are obtained from numerical model
 Simulations were performed on validated model during intake process of the engine. In-cylinder pres-
by adding ethanol to the fuel, respectively, 2.5%, sure data collected during this period of time were low
5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% by volume (E2.5, E5, values; however, the pressure sensor was designed in
E10, E15, and E20), and combustion characteris- order to be accurate at high in-cylinder pressure values.
tics, emissions, and performance values were Moreover, sensitivity to pressure fluctuations caused
examined. by vertical positioning of the pressure sensor due to
 Simulations were performed under stoichio- constructive restrictions, such as cooling ribs, led mea-
metric conditions by calculating excess air ratio sured values to occur higher than real experimental val-
for different fuel fraction operations. ues during intake stroke and beginning of compression
stroke. It is predicted that combustion process, perfor-
mance, and emission characteristics were not affected
Results and discussion from abovementioned error, since the differences
occurred at intake stroke and beginning of compression
After validation of the model realized, combustion
stroke.
characteristics, performance, and emission results of the
Indicated engine power (Ni), ISEC, and specific
present study, which was conducted at Yıldız Technical
emissions (CO, THC, and NOx) values which were cal-
University, Internal Combustion Engines Laboratory,
culated via tests and gathered from simulation results,
are discussed in the below part.
and error percentages are shown in Table 4. The maxi-
mum error percentage between the test and simulation
results is 6.34% for THC emissions and compared val-
Validation
ues considered sufficient to verify the built model.
Engine model is built on AVL Boost validated using
the pressure and emission data gathered during experi-
mental engine test. From the tests, the maximum pres- Combustion
sure was achieved at 35.748 bars at 365.8°CA and in Pressure values of gasoline, E2.5, E5, E10, E15, and
the model results the maximum pressure was achieved E20 fuel conditions that were gathered from simula-
at 35.989 bars at 366.00°CA. The error in the maximum tions shown in Figure 4. Maximum pressure values
pressure values was calculated as 0.674%. As shown in gathered are 35.989 bar (at 366.00°CA), 36.105 bar (at
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 4. Model validation parameters and error values.

Parameter Experimental Simulation Error (%)

Max pressure (Pa) 35.748 35.989 20.68

Ni (kW) 5.973 6.074 21.70
ISEC (MJ/kW h) 15.19 15.02 1.12
CO (g/kW h) 274.9 287.8 24.69
THC (g/kW h) 1.42 1.51 26.34
NOx (g/kW h) 1.09 1.06 2.75

Figure 5. Variation of heat release rate values with different

ethanol fractions.

Figure 4. Variation of in-cylinder pressure with different

ethanol fractions.

365.90°CA), 36.548 bar (at 365.85°CA), 36.585 bar (at

365.65°CA), 36.997 bar (at 365.50°CA), and 37.160 bar
(at 365.15°CA), respectively.
HRR results of different fuel conditions are shown Figure 6. Indicator diagram with different ethanol fractions.
in Figure 5. In the data gathered from simulations,
maximum HRRs for gasoline are E2.5, E5, E10, E15,
and E20 are 0.036729 1/°CA (at 360.8°CA), 0.037392 Similar trends in HRR with increasing ethanol content
1/°CA (at 360.7°CA), 0.038473 1/°CA (at 360.6°CA), were reported in research paper by Schifter et al.8 This
0.038532 1/°CA (at 360.4°CA), 0.039314 1/°CA (at HRR variation characteristic also explains increasing
360.2°CA), and 0.039440 1/°CA (at 360.1°CA), maximum in-cylinder pressure which occurs at earlier
respectively. crank angle.
When high flammability range and relatively high
adiabatic flame speed of ethanol is considered, the rea-
son of maximum pressure and HRR values are higher Performance
and more closed to TDC can be explained by combus- Indicated power (Ni) values were improved from 6.07
tion to be completed in a shorter period of time. This to 6.13 kW, with slight increasing trend, as seen in
effect leads combustion to be completed faster and cycle Figure 7, with the increase in the proportion of ethanol
to show closer characteristics to ideal constant volume in the fuel. For gasoline, E2.5, E5, E10, E15, and E20
combustion and maximum pressure values to increase fuels indicated power values are 6.074, 6.09, 6.10, 6.12,
and efficiency to improve.10 In-cylinder pressure– 6.126, and 6.13 kW, respectively. Although, ethanol has
volume diagram of the engine is given in Figure 6 and less lower heating value, power improvement with
increase in closed area of the diagram and hence, higher ethanol content can be explained by lower stoi-
increase in mechanical work done per cycle can be seen chiometric AFR and higher vapor density of ethanol.
as a result of abovementioned effects of ethanol. Lower stoichiometric ratio of ethanol allows to burn
Köten et al. 9

Figure 7. Variation of indicated engine power versus ethanol

content. Figure 9. Variation of indicated mean effective pressure versus
ethanol content.

fractions showed similarity with those of engine torque

and power values since IMEP is one of the main para-
meters of indicated engine torque and power.
Simulation results of IMEP for gasoline E2.5, E5, E10,
E15, and E20 fuels are 1.125, 1.128, 1.130, 1.133, 1.134,
and 1.135 MPa, respectively. Maximum improvement
in IMEP was 0.91% with E20 fuel compared to neat
gasoline (E0).
As stated before, lower stoichiometric ratio of etha-
nol allows to burn more fuel mass with the same
amount of air, while lower vapor pressure of ethanol
increases volumetric efficiency with increasing ethanol
content. Hence, for the same cylinder volume, more
amount of fuel mass can be taken and burned effi-
Figure 8. Variation of indicated engine torque versus ethanol
content.
ciently thanks to higher flame speed of ethanol, which
contributes to power and torque increase.14 Slight
increasing trends, which are seen in indicated engine
more fuel mass with the same amount of air. Moreover, power, torque, and mean effective pressure in parallel
lower vapor pressure and higher heat of evaporation of with each other, are coherent with torque results found
ethanol increases volumetric efficiency with increasing in research by Wu et al.17 at constant engine speed,
ethanol content.11 Hence, for the same cylinder volume, throttle position, and AFR conditions.
more amount of fuel mass can be taken and burned ITE values with different ethanol contents are given
efficiently thanks to higher flame speed of ethanol. in Figure 10. Indicated thermal efficiency values were
Similar to indicated engine power tendency, indi- 23.97%, 24.06%, 24.14%, 24.26%, 24.32%, and
cated torque (Mi) values also increased with the 24.39% in tendency to improve with increasing ethanol
increase in the proportion of ethanol in the fuel. fraction of E0, E2.5, E5, E10, E15, and E20 fuels,
Indicated engine torque values were increased from respectively. Maximum increase in IMEP was 1.76%
24.17 to 24.39 N m, with slightly increasing trend for between E0 and E20 fuel operations.
gasoline to E20 fuels, respectively. Figure 8 shows indi- As mentioned above, increase in ethanol causes com-
cated torque results of gasoline, E2.5, E5, E10, E15, bustion to be completed in a shorter time and cycle to
and E20 fuel operations. show closer characteristics to ideal constant volume
Effects of ethanol fraction on IMEP values at stoi- combustion and efficiency to increase. Since simula-
chiometric conditions are seen in Figure 9. Analyses tions run at constant engine speed, stoichiometric oper-
results showed that IMEP values were increased using ation condition, efficiency increase also contribute to
higher ethanol content in fuel at stoichiometric condi- slight increase in indicated engine power, torque, and
tion. Trends of IMEP variations by different ethanol IMEP. It can also be seen that ethanol provides higher
10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 10. Variation of indicated thermal efficiency versus Figure 12. Variation of specific CO emission versus ethanol
ethanol content. content.

at high flammability range and flame speed.5 ISEC

results found in this study are coherent with gasoline–
ethanol comparison by Li et al.13

Emissions
In addition to improving the combustion characteristics
and performance of the engine, it is important that the
emission values also improve or remain acceptable. The
effects of specific ethanol contents on the specific CO
emissions of fuels are shown in Figure 12. As a conclu-
sion of simulations, a decrease in CO emissions, which
are pretty harmful to the human health, is observed
when ethanol is added to neat gasoline. Emitted CO
Figure 11. Variation of indicated specific energy consumption values were 287.8 g/kW h for neat gasoline while for
versus ethanol content. E20 it is decreased to 266.7 g/kW h.
CO emission strongly depends on AFR.3 However,
AFR does not have effect on CO emission results since
thermal efficiency compared to gasoline as in the results experimental and theoretical results are obtained under
of Balki et al.10 stoichiometric conditions, independent of ethanol pro-
Since the energy content of different fuel blends was portion in fuel. The decreasing trend in CO can be
used in the study, the ISEC was examined to better explained by the ratio of ethanol with low C content
express the consumption and efficiency values of the compared to gasoline; thus, decrease in ratio of C in
engine rather than indicated specific fuel consumption total fuel and high flammability limits of ethanol as an
(ISFC). ISFC has increasing trend in g/kW h with oxygenated fuel facilitates reduction of CO.39 It also
increasing ethanol content as opposed to ISEC due to causes a decrease in CO emission with increasing cylin-
low heating value of unit mass of ethanol. As a result der pressure and temperature values due to faster
of the simulations, it is observed that ISEC was 15.02 combustion.
under neat gasoline condition while it decreased by Figure 13 shows the specific THC emissions of dif-
1.7% and was 14.76 MJ/kW h under E20 fuel condition ferent ethanol content fuels. Gathered THC values for
with increased ethanol fraction. Using E2.5, E5, E10, gasoline, E2.5, E5, E10, E15, and E20 fuels are 1.51,
E15, and E20 fuels, the EER values are equal to 1.7%, 1.49, 1.48, 1.44, 1.43, and 1.41 g/kW h, respectively.
3.4%, 6.9%, 10.6%, and 14.4%, respectively. Figure 11 The maximum improvement in THC emissions was in
shows the decrease in energy consumption with increas- E20 fuel, and this improvement is 6.62% compared to
ing ethanol content in the fuel. gasoline.
This decrease in ISEC is similar to the above expla- Similarly as for CO, the reason of increasing ethanol
nation, and it can be explained by increased efficiency ratio caused THC emission to decrease because of high
Köten et al. 11

Figure 13. Variation of specific THC emission versus ethanol Figure 14. Variation of specific NOx emissions versus ethanol
content. content.

flammability limits of ethanol and due to the relatively 1.21 g/kW h. The maximum increase in NOx emissions
high in-cylinder pressure and temperature caused by on E20 fuels is 14.29% in comparison to neat gasoline.
the high flame velocity. Moreover, oxygen enhance- In the literature, there are different opinions and
ment thanks to ethanol addition provides more com- obtained results about ethanol ratio increase in gasoline
plete combustion and hence reduces THC emissions.17 on the effect of NOx.3 According to some researchers,
THC and CO emission characteristics provided from NOx emission depends on operating conditions of
simulations are similar to study of Iodice et al.28 engine rather than ethanol rate.6 However, in cases
The resulting oxides of nitrogen are formed from where engine and ignition advance are not modified, it
nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, and in general, is reported by Dai et al.19 and Li et al.13 who compared
the most important parameter affecting the amount ethanol and gasoline and by Costa et al.12 who com-
and the formation is the temperature. For ethanol- pared ethanol and ethanol-gasoline mixture in their
gasoline blends thermal NOx formation is also domi- studies that ethanol causes lower THC and CO, higher
nant mechanism.3 Lower heating value and high heat NOx emission. In study of Stump et al.20 who per-
of vaporization of ethanol decrease temperature which formed tests on different vehicles at cruise cycles, it is
results in a temperature fall in cylinder. Low adiabatic found that HC and CO emissions decrease with ethanol
flame temperature reduces NOx formation. In this addition while NOx emissions mostly increase. NOx,
study realized at stoichiometry, more fuel is consumed THC, and CO emission results in study are parallel
because of increasing volumetric efficiency due to stoi- with results of Schifter et al.8
chiometric rate decrease parallel with increasing etha- Table 5 summarizes the effects of ethanol content of
nol rate, high vapor density, and evaporation heat. fuel on performance and emission characteristics, which
Moreover, thermal efficiency obtained with high flame are obtained from simulation results. It can be seen
speed increases peak pressure and temperature. Besides, that, IMEP, ITE, ISEC, CO, and THC results were
oxygenates of fuel shows increasing effect on NOx, improved while NOx emissions were deteriorated by
while decreases CO and HC emissions.22,23 It is esti- increasing ethanol fractions in fuel.
mated that combustion completed in less time by virtue
of high flame speed allows less reversible reactions, thus
Conclusion
resulting in more NOx releases, since forward and
reverse NOx reactions have different rate coefficients In the study conducted, developed 1D engine model
depending on temperature and NOx formations freeze was verified at 2400-r/min constant engine speed, full
early in the expansion stroke.24 As a result of these load, and under stoichiometric conditions, with the
effects, as expected in the simulation results, NOx val- help of engine performance, in-cylinder pressure, and
ues are inversely proportional to THC and CO emis- emission data obtained by experiments with neat gaso-
sions, increasing with the ratio of ethanol in the fuel. line fuel. Obtained data such as engine performance,
Values gathered from simulations are shown in emission, and combustion at stoichiometry for different
Figure 14. NOx values observed as 1.06 g/kW h as fuels (gasoline, E2.5, E5, E10, E15, and E20) were com-
working with neat gasoline while increasing ethanol pared to each other using a one-dimension mathemati-
amount caused emitted NOx amount to increase to cal engine model.
12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 5. Percentage changes by the effect of ethanol fractions of fuel.

Fuel IMEP (%) ITE (%) ISEC (%) CO (%) THC (%) NOx (%)

E2.5 0.25 0.40 20.40 21.63 21.32 1.89

E5 0.42 0.74 20.73 22.64 21.99 4.72
E10 0.74 1.21 21.20 24.41 24.64 8.49
E15 0.84 1.49 21.46 26.05 25.30 10.38
E20 0.91 1.76 21.73 27.33 26.62 14.15

IMEP: indicated mean effective pressure; ITE: indicated thermal efficiency; ISEC: indicated specific energy consumption.

The results obtained are summarized below: author of the manuscript has been financially supported by
TUBITAK 2228-B program.
 The results gathered from neat gasoline at 2400-
r/min constant engine speed were compatible ORCID iDs
with developed 1D model, in-cylinder pressure
Hasan Köten https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1907-9420
data overlapped on a large scale. Error in the Yasin Karagöz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5271-9015
maximum pressure was just 0.674%.
 As a result of the analyses, under stoichiometric
conditions, with increasing ethanol content, References
there is a slight increase in indicated engine 1. Mourad M and Mahmoud K. Investigation into SI
power and a decrease in ISEC values. Increasing engine performance characteristics and emissions fuelled
ethanol amounts and maximum in-cylinder pres- with ethanol/butanol-gasoline blends. Renew Energ 2019;
sure and maximum normalized HRR data were 143: 762–771.
closer to the TDC, and pressure data were 2. Yücesu HS, Topgül T, C xinar C, et al. Effect of ethanol–
gasoline blends on engine performance and exhaust emis-
increased.
 sions in different compression ratios. Appl Therm Eng
Increasing ethanol ratio caused CO and specific
2006; 26: 2272–2278.
THC emissions to improve significantly. 3. Masum BM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, et al. Effect of
Maximum improvement on specific CO emission ethanol–gasoline blend on NOX emission in SI engine.
was 7.33%, and maximum improvement on Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2013; 24: 209–222.
THC emissions was 6.62%. 4. Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 142 Rules and Regulations
 It has been found that increasing ethanol ratio (US EPA), Monday, July 25, 2011.
lead NOx emissions to increase by 14.29%. 5. Thakur AK, Kaviti AK, Mehra R, et al. Progress in per-
Reason of this increase is high flame speed of formance analysis of ethanol-gasoline blends on SI
and O2 content of ethanol fuel. engine. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2017; 69: 324–340.
 Since ethanol addition causes reduction in THC 6. Hsieh WD, Chen RH, Wu TL, et al. Engine performance
and CO emissions and increase in NOx emis- and pollutant emission of an SI engine using ethanol–
gasoline blended fuels. Atmos Environ 2002; 36: 403–410.
sions, it will be useful to examine the post-
7. Zhang B and Sarathy SM. Lifecycle optimized ethanol-
combustion emission reduction methods and
gasoline blends for turbocharged engines. Appl Energ
performance optimization of these methods for 2016; 181: 38–53.
ethanol and gasoline blends operating conditions 8. Schifter I, Diaz L, Rodriguez R, et al. Combustion and
as a future work of this study. emissions behavior for ethanol–gasoline blends in a sin-
gle cylinder engine. Fuel 2011; 90: 3586–3592.
Declaration of conflicting interests 9. Costagliola MA, Prati MV, Florio S, et al. Performances
and emissions of a 4-stroke motorcycle fuelled with etha-
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with nol/gasoline blends. Fuel 2016; 183: 470–477.
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this 10. Balki MK, Sayin C and Canakci M. The effect of differ-
article. ent alcohol fuels on the performance, emission and com-
bustion characteristics of a gasoline engine. Fuel 2014;
Funding 115: 901–906.
11. Kocx M, Sekman Y, Topgül T, et al. The effects of
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup- ethanol–unleaded gasoline blends on engine performance
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this and exhaust emissions in a spark-ignition engine. Renew
article: This research was supported by TUBITAK (Scientific Energ 2009; 34: 2101–2106.
and Technological Research Council of Turkey) with 1512 12. Costa RC and Sodré JR. Hydrous ethanol vs. gasoline-
project (project number: 2150175). The authors are also ethanol blend: engine performance and emissions. Fuel
indebted to S xahin Metal A.Sx. and Erin Motor for providing 2010; 89: 287–293.
us with test apparatus and equipment donation. The third
Köten et al. 13

13. Li L, Liu Z, Wang H, et al. Combustion and emissions (GDI) engines and their control techniques. Energies
of ethanol fuel (E100) in a small SI engine. SAE technical 2018; 11: 1417.
paper 2003-01-3262, 2003. 26. Leach FCP, Stone R, Richardson D, et al. The effect of
14. Iodice P, Langella G and Amoresano A. Ethanol in gaso- oxygenate fuels on PN emissions from a highly boosted
line fuel blends: effect on fuel consumption and engine GDI engine. Fuel 2018; 225: 277–286.
out emissions of SI engines in cold operating conditions. 27. Sakai S and Rothamer D. Effect of ethanol blending on
Appl Therm Eng 2018; 130: 1081–1089. particulate formation from premixed combustion in
15. Zhuang Y, Qian Y and Hong G. The effect of ethanol spark-ignition engines. Fuel 2017; 196: 154–168.
direct injection on knock mitigation in a gasoline port 28. Iodice P, Senatore A, Langella G, et al. Effect of ethanol–
injection engine. Fuel 2017; 210: 187–197. gasoline blends on CO and HC emissions in last genera-
16. Kim N, Cho S and Min K. A study on the combustion tion SI engines within the cold-start transient: an experi-
and emission characteristics of an SI engine under full mental investigation. Appl Energ 2016; 179: 182–190.
load conditions with ethanol port injection and gasoline 29. Yunoki S and Saito M. A simple method to determine
direct injection. Fuel 2015; 158: 725–732. bioethanol content in gasoline using two-step extraction
17. Wu C-W, Chen R-H, Pu J-Y, et al. The influence of air– and liquid scintillation counting. Bioresource Technol
fuel ratio on engine performance and pollutant emission 2009; 100: 6125–6128.
of an SI engine using ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels. 30. Sampaio MR, Rosa LP and de Almeida DM. Ethanol–
Atmos Environ 2004; 38: 7093–7100. electric propulsion as a sustainable technological alterna-
18. Huang Y, Hong G and Huang R. Effect of injection tim- tive for urban buses in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energ Rev
ing on mixture formation and combustion in an ethanol 2007; 11: 1514–1529.
direct injection plus gasoline port injection (EDI + GPI) 31. VDMA Engines and Systems. Exhaust emission legisla-
engine. Energy 2016; 111: 92–103. tion diesel- and gas engines. Frankfurt: VDMA, 2017.
19. Dai W, Cheemalamarri S, Curtis E, et al. Engine cycle 32. A-8020 BOOST v2013.2. manual (Edition 11/2013). Graz:
simulation of ethanol and gasoline blends. SAE technical AVL.
paper 2003-01-3093, 2003. 33. Yeliana Cooney C, Worm J, Michalek D, et al. Wiebe
20. Stump FD, Knapp KT and Ray WD. Influence of function parameter determination for mass fraction burn
ethanol-blended fuels on the emissions from three pre- calculation in an ethanol-gasoline fuelled SI engine. J
1985 light-duty passenger vehicles. J Air Waste Manage KONES Powertrain Transp 2008; 15(3): 567–574.
Assoc 1996; 46: 1149–1161. 34. Heywood JB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals.
21. D’Errico G, Ferrari G, Onorati A, et al. Modeling the pollu- New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988, pp.47–48.
tant emissions from a SI engine. SAE Trans 2002; 111: 1–11. 35. Wang S, Ji C, Zhang B, et al. Lean burn performance of
22. Reuter RM, Benson J, Burns V, et al. Effects of oxyge- a hydrogen-blended gasoline engine at the wide open
nated fuels and RVP on automotive emissions: auto. SAE throttle condition. Appl Energ 2014; 136: 43–50.
Trans 1992; 101: 463–484. 36. Kolchin A and Demidov V. Design of automotive engines.
23. Knoll K, West B, Clark W, et al. Effects of intermediate Moscow: MIR Publishers, 1984, p. 101.
ethanol blends on legacy vehicles and small non-road 37. Rolf E. Combustion diagnostics by means of multizone
engines, report 1—updated. Oak Ridge, TN: National heat release analysis and no calculation. SAE technical
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2009. paper 981424, 1998.
24. Lavoie GA, Heywood JB and Keck JC. Experimental and 38. Kline SJ and McClintock FA. Describing uncertainties in
theoretical study of nitric oxide formation in internal com- single-sample experiments. Mech Eng 1953; 75: 3–8.
bustion engines. Combust Sci Technol 1970; 1: 313–326. 39. Bata RM, Elord AC and Rice RW. Emissions from IC
25. Raza M, Chen L, Leach F, et al. A review of particulate engines fueled with alcohol–gasoline blends: a literature
number (PN) emissions from gasoline direct injection review. Trans ASME 1989; 111: 424–431.