Applied Thermal Engineering 133 (2018) 371–380

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Research Paper

Combustion, performance and exhaust emission characterizations of a diesel T

engine operating with a ternary blend (alcohol-biodiesel-diesel fuel)
⁎
A. Osman Emiroğlua, Mehmet Şenb,
a
Abant Izzet Baysal University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 14100 Bolu, Turkey
b
Abant Izzet Baysal University, Department of Automotive Technology, 14100 Bolu, Turkey

H I G H L I G H T S

• Comprehensive comparison of combustion, performance and emission characteristics of ternary fuel blends.
• Higher CP , HRR
max and R
max values of alcohol blends.
max

• Very close BTE values to each other for all fuels used in the experiments.
• Significant reduction in smoke emissions with the addition of alcohols.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Interest in alternative and clean energy has increased in order to meet increasing energy need and control over
Alcohol air pollution. In this context, studies on renewable alternative fuels such as biodiesel and alcohols for diesel
Ethanol engines continue intensively. However, pure biodiesel cannot be used alone in diesel engines due to its high
Methanol density and viscosity. Therefore, in order to improve the density and viscosity of the biodiesel blend, alcohols are
Butanol
used as a fuel additive. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of the biodiesel and various alcohols
Biodiesel
Combustion
additions to petroleum-based diesel fuel (DF) on combustion, performance and emissions of a single-cylinder
diesel engine at different engine loads. In preparing the fuel blends used in the experiments, 20% cottonseed
biodiesel was first mixed with DF and coded as B20. The mixture ratio was set at 20% biodiesel: 10% butanol,
10% ethanol, or 10% methanol and coded as B20Bu10, B20E10, and B20M10, respectively.
Our results showed that ignition delay (ID) of the biodiesel and alcohol blends was longer than that of DF
because of their low cetane numbers. The values of maximum cylinder pressure (CPmax), maximum pressure rise
(Rmax), and maximum heat release rate (HRRmax) of B20 and their locations were very close to the DF at all the
loads. However, due to the low cetane number of the alcohols and the rapid combustion of the fuel accumulated
in the combustion chamber during the long ignition delay, the CPmax, HRRmax and Rmax values of the alcohol
blends were higher than those of B20 and DF for all the engine loads. This difference was more apparent at the
high engine loads. Since the heating values of the biodiesel and alcohols were lower than those of DF, the B20
and alcohol blends had higher brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) values. The brake thermal efficiency
(BTE) values of all the fuels used in the experiments were very close to each other, followed a similar trend and
reached their maximum at 0.27 MPa. The B20 and alcohol blends led to a slight increase in nitrogen oxide (NOx)
and hydrocarbons (HC) emissions while reducing smoke and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. With the addition
of the alcohols, a significant reduction in smoke emissions was observed at all the engine loads due to the high
oxygen content and low C/H of the alcohols.

1. Introduction sources are attractive alternative solutions to meet increased energy

demands and to reduce exhaust emissions [1]. Diesel engines are widely
Recently, the interest in alternative fuels has increased due to the used because of their high power output and high fuel efficiency. They
decrease in oil reserves and the rise in oil prices and environmental also exhibit lower emissions of conventional exhaust pollutants such as
concerns. Biofuels such as biodiesel and alcohols from renewable CO and unburned HC than do gasoline engines [2].

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sen_m@ibu.edu.tr (M. Şen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.01.069
Received 25 March 2017; Received in revised form 17 January 2018; Accepted 19 January 2018
Available online 31 January 2018
1359-4311/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.O. Emiroğlu, M. Şen
There are various types of alternative fuels, but biodiesel is con-
sidered to be the most promising, clean and alternative fuel for diesel
engines. Biodiesel can be produced from vegetable oils or animal fat
feedstocks by alcohol transesterification and does not contain aromatics
and sulfur [3]. In addition, it contains about 10–15% oxygen by weight
[4]. Biodiesel is a renewable, biodegradable, non-toxic fuel and has
similar combustion characteristics to diesel fuel. For this reason, it can
be used directly or by blending with diesel fuels in compression ignition
engine [5]. Biodiesel has also some negative fuel characteristics such as
low volatility, high density, high viscosity, and high pour point [6]. For
these reasons, pure biodiesel is not widely used in diesel engines
without any modification. The physical properties of the fuel are very
important parameters in the diesel engines during the atomization
process. For example, viscosity of biodiesel is very effective in the
distribution of the fuel droplet size, the atomization quality of the fuel
injection, and the uniformity of the mixture [7]. One of the methods of
reducing the density and viscosity of biodiesel is the addition of alcohol
which improves the overall fuel properties of the fuel blend [8]. In
addition, alcohols have been reported to be a suitable additive for diesel
and biodiesel fuel in order to reduce exhaust emissions and improve
engine combustion because of the high oxygen content [7].
The cetane number is one of the most important parameters in-
dicating fuel ignition quality and determining the duration of ID. The
increase in the cetane number is directly proportional to the length of
the carbon chain. Typical diesel engines require a cetane number be-
tween 45 and 60, and when the cetane number drops below 38, the ID
increases rapidly. In general, alcohols have a lower cetane number (8
for ethanol, 3 for methanol and 25 for butanol) than diesel fuel, re-
sulting in longer ID. Although the use of oxygen-rich alcohols improves
both premixed and diffusion combustion stages, their lower heating
values and cetane numbers, miscibility and stability problems, poor
auto-ignition qualities, and inappropriate lubrication features limit the
use of alcohols as a pure diesel engine fuel [9]. There are many studies
in the literature to examine engine performance and exhaust emissions
using alcohol fuels (ethanol, methanol, and butanol) blended with
standard diesel fuels [10–16]. These studies have shown that alcohol
fuel blends improve some exhaust emissions (CO and smoke density),
but reduce diesel engine output torque and increase the BSFC [10].
Ethanol is most commonly used one in fuel studies among alcohols,
as it is renewable and has more miscibility with diesel fuel. Ethanol
improves the combustion and reduces the exhaust emissions such as CO
and smoke due to its high oxygen content [17]. However, since the flash
point of ethanol is much lower than diesel fuels, the preparation of fuel
mixtures requires more precautions. Less studies exist in the literature
about the use of methanol as an alternative diesel fuel additive than
about that of ethanol [14,18,19]. Methanol can be obtained at a low
cost from coal or petroleum-based fuels, but its miscibility in diesel fuel
is rather limited. However, ethanol is a renewable fuel that can be
produced from biomass such as corn, sugar beets, sugar cane, sweet
sorghum, barley, cassava, and molasses by alcoholic fermentation of
sugar. Ethanol can be also produced from agricultural residues such as
raw materials, waste woods, and straw [20]. Compared to ethanol and
methanol, butanol has very similar fuel properties to diesel fuels. Bu-
tanol has some advantages as an alternative fuel additive for com-
pression ignition engines due to its higher cetane number, higher mis-
cibility, and lower vapor pressure. In addition, butanol has less
corrosivity and higher energy content and is a biomass-drived renew-
able fuel such as ethanol.
The use of alcohols as a diesel fuel additive has some limitations due
to the low cetane number, low miscibility and long ignition delay.
Although biodiesel appears to be the smartest choice among biofuels,
there are also some challenges in using biodiesel as a fuel in the diesel
engine [8]. For this reason, the use of ternary fuel blends in the diesel
engines is considered a solution to reduce the above-mentioned draw-
backs of biodiesel and alcohol. There are many studies in the literature
on the effects of ternary fuel blends (diesel, biodiesel, and alcohol) on
372
Applied Thermal Engineering 133 (2018) 371–380
the diesel engine combustion and performance as well as pollutant
emissions such as smoke, NOx, CO, and HC. The influences of various
alcohol-biodiesel-diesel blends on the combustion, performance, and
exhaust emissions of the diesel engines are discussed below.
Guido et al. [21] studied the effect of bioethanol addition to rape-
seed methyl ester-diesel blend in a four-cylinder light-duty diesel en-
gine. Test results showed that ethanol addition significantly reduced
smoke and NOx emissions but increased CO and HC emissions and
BSFC. Bhale et al. [22] examined the effect of ethanol addition to
mahua biodiesel on engine performance and exhaust emissions. They
reported that the ethanol blend reduced CO and NOx emissions but
increased HC emissions. Zhu et al. [23] investigated the effects of
ethanol-biodiesel blends on the combustion, performance and emission
characteristics of a four-cylinder direct-injection diesel engine. Their
results showed that the ethanol-biodiesel blends caused higher BTE and
lower particulate matter and NOx emissions than the diesel fuel. In
addition, with increased ethanol concentration in fuel blends, CO and
HC emissions and BSFC increased. Yasin et al. [7] examined the effect
of the ternary fuel blend (methanol-biodiesel-mineral diesel) on the
performance and emissions of the diesel engine. They noted that the
ternary fuel blend reduced CO emissions but increased NOx emissions
and BSFC. Kumar et al. [24,25] tested the methanol-jatropha oil blend
in a diesel engine and stated that NOx emission decreased, whereas HC
and CO emissions increased at low loads and decreased at high loads.
The butanol-biodiesel blend with 20% butanol was reported to lead to
higher CO and HC emissions and lower NOx emissions than diesel fuel
[26]. Despite a slight increase in NOx emissions and BSFC, a significant
reduction in smoke emission was observed. In addition, the effects of
butanol on the combustion process were investigated. Tosun et al. [27]
analyzed the effects of the addition of 20% ethanol and methanol to
peanut methyl ester on the fuel properties, performance, and emissions.
They reported that butanol-biodiesel blend had higher engine power
and torque than diesel fuel.
Wang et al. [28] studied change in the exhaust emissions of the
diesel engine using an ultralow-sulfur diesel fuel blended with ethanol,
biodiesel and dimethyl ether. Their main results showed that the par-
ticulate matter (PM) emission decreased with the increased oxygenate
content of the blends. Ethanol addition to diesel fuel increased HC, CO,
NOx and NO2 emissions and decreased particle number concentration.
Huang et al. [29] investigated the combustion characteristics of a
compression-ignition engine operating on the stabilized diesel/me-
thanol blends. Their study showed that increased methanol mass frac-
tion of the diesel/methanol blends increased the heat release rate
(HRR) in the premixed burning phase and shortened the combustion
duration of the diffusive burning phase. The ignition delay increased
with the fuel delivery advance angle for both diesel fuel and the diesel/
methanol blends. For a specific fuel delivery advance angle, the ignition
delay increased with the increased methanol mass fraction (oxygen
mass fraction) in the fuel blends, with the obvious behaviors at a low
engine load and/or a high engine speed. The rapid burn and total
combustion durations increased with the fuel delivery advance angle.
Ren et al. [30] investigated the combustion and emissions of a direct
injection diesel engine fuelled with six selected oxygenated fuel blends.
They found that the ignition delay decreased with the increased di-
glyme fraction of the blends due to high cetane number of the diglyme.
However, the ignition delay of the other diesel oxygenate blends in-
creased with the increased oxygenate fuel fraction of the fuel blends
due to the low cetane numbers of the oxygenate fuels. Combustion
durations decreased with the increased oxygenate fraction of the
blends. In addition, they reported that the reduction of smoke was
strongly related to the oxygen-content of blends, and CO and HC con-
centrations decreased with the increased oxygen mass fraction of the
blends.
As mentioned above, a number of studies have been conducted on
diesel engines to examine the exhaust emissions and engine perfor-
mance of various alcohol-biodiesel diesel blends. However, studies on
A.O. Emiroğlu, M. Şen Applied Thermal Engineering 133 (2018) 371–380

Table 1 Table 2
The basic properties of the test fuels. Basic characteristics of the test engine.

Properties DF B20 B20Bu10 B20E10 B20M10 Items Specifications

Density (kg/m3) 831.5 842 840 837.5 838 Model Lombardini 15 LD 350
Kinematics viscosity (mm2/s) 2.40 2.78 2.90 2.66 2.60 Engine type Naturally-aspirated, air-cooled, DI diesel engine
Lower heating value (MJ/kg) 43.20 42.36 41.35 40.88 40.00 Cylinder number 1
Cetan number 58.8 57.8 54.4 52.7 52.3 Maximum torque 16.6 Nm/2400 rpm
Hydrogen (wt%) 13.4 13.2 13.2 13.1 13.1 Maximum power 7.5 HP/3600 rpm
Carbon (wt%) 86.6 84.7 82.5 81.3 79.8 Compression ratio 20.3/1
Oxygen (wt%) 0 2.1 4.3 5.6 7.1 Displacement 349 cm3
Bore × stroke 82 mm × 66 mm
Injection pump type QLC type
the combustion behavior of these ternary fuel blends in the literature Nozzle opening pressure 207 bar
Injection nozzle 0.22 × 4 holes × 160 deg
are rather limited when compared to studies about engine performance
Fuel delivery advance (°CA) 20 BTDC
and exhaust emission alone. The main objective of this experimental Intake valve open/close (°CA) 10 BTDC/42 ABDC
study was, therefore, to simultaneously and systematically quantify and
compare the effects of these ternary fuel blends (ethanol, methanol, and
butanol) on combustion, performance, and exhaust emissions. direct-injection and single-cylinder diesel engine. Table 2 shows the
basic properties of the test engine. To load the engine, a Kemsan brand
2. Materials and methods DC dynamometer was used that produced 15 kW of power at 3000 rpm.
The engine torque measurement was performed using a Kistler
In this study, the effects of various alcohol additions to the biodiesel brand 4550A model torque meter. A Kistler 2614B model encoder was
blend on combustion behavior, engine performance, and exhaust connected to the crankshaft to measure the top dead center (TDC),
emissions were investigated. For this purpose, cottonseed biodiesel, crank angle, and engine speed. In order to measure the in-cylinder
diesel fuel and ethanol, methanol, and butanol as alcohol additives pressure, a A3 Kistler 6052C piezoelectric pressure sensor and a 5064
were used. Table 1 indicates the basic properties of the fuels used in the charge amplifier were used. Fuel line pressure was measured using a
experiments. Commercial diesel fuel was used in order to obtain re- Kistler brand 4065B piezoresistive sensor mounted on the fuel line with
ference data. Then cottonseed biodiesel was mixed with the DF in 20% a 6533A clamp adapter and connected to a 4665 amplifier. The cylinder
and called B20. Afterward, butanol, ethanol, and methanol were mixed pressure and fuel line pressure values were obtained at a resolution of
with B20 at a ratio of 10% and called B20Bu10, B20E10 and B20M10, 0.1 degree crankshaft angle. All data were recorded using a Kistler
respectively. The tests were carried out under variable engine brake KiBox data acquisition system. Emission values were measured using a
mean effective pressure (BMEP) of 0.09 MPa, 0.18 MPa, 0.27 MPa and Mobydick 5000 Kombi exhaust gas analyzer. The basic characteristics
0.36 MPa at a constant engine speed of 1500 rpm. The tests of the of the exhaust gas analyzer and opacimeter are shown in Table 3.
prepared fuel blends were carried out under the same operating con- In order to obtain stable data, the engine was run for five minutes
ditions to compare with the reference DF. before each experimental measurement. To obtain each emission value,
Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of the test engine setup. The en- five measurements were performed at the same intervals and their
gine experiments were carried out on a naturally-aspirated, air-cooled, averages were taken. To reduce cycle errors, all data received from the

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the engine test rig.

373
A.O. Emiroğlu, M. Şen Applied Thermal Engineering 133 (2018) 371–380

Table 3
Basic features of the exhaust gas analyzer and opacimeter.
Range
NOx (ppm) 0–5000
Smoke Opocity(%) 0–100
CO (%,v/v) 0–10
HC (ppm) 0–20,000
Kibox were recalculated by taking the average values of 100 cycles.
CPmax and their positions, HRR and HRRmax, and the start and end of
combustion were calculated by the KiBox Cockpit software.
The HRR was calculated using Eq. (1) by applying the first law of
thermodynamics [31]:
dQn k dV 1 dp
= p + V
dθ k−1 dθ k−1 dθ
While HRR was calculated, the wall heat losses were not taken into
account. k in Eq. (1) is the constant polytropic exponent and its value is
taken as 1.37 in this study. The start of combustion (SOC) and the end
of combustion (EOC) correspond to 5% and 90% of the total heat re-
lease, respectively. The difference between SOC and EOC is called
combustion duration (CD). The start of injection (SOI) is the crank
angle at which the fuel injector test device reaches the injector opening
pressure determined as 207 bar. The ignition delay is the difference
between SOI and SOC.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Injection and combustion characteristics
Start of injection changes with the physical properties of fuels, such
as viscosity, density, and compressibility and is highly influential on
combustion characteristics, engine performance, and exhaust emis-
sions. The fuel injection timing changes cylinder pressure, heat release
rate as well as ignition delay. Table 4 shows the numerical values of
injection and combustion characteristics of all the fuels for the different
engine loads. The percentage changes in the injection and combustion
characteristics of the B20 and biodiesel-alcohol blends compared to the
reference diesel fuel are shown in Fig. 2. High viscosity and low com-
pressibility of the fuels caused the fuel pressure to rise rapidly and the
injection to start earlier. The injection started later for all the fuels with
an increase in the engine load as shown in Table 4. Because of the lower
compressibility of biodiesel, the B20 and the alcohol-biodiesel blends
Accuracy
started injecting about 2–3% earlier than DF, as shown in Fig. 2. The
1 viscosity of butanol was higher than that of the other alcohols used in
±2 this study. Therefore, the injection of the B20Bu10 started earlier than
0.01
that of the other alcohol blends for all the engine loads. The injection of
1
the B20M10 started at the latest depending on the lowest viscosity of
methanol.
The ID is the difference between SOI and SOC. As can be seen from
Table 4, the cetane number, viscosity, and oxygen content of the fuels
had a significant effect on ID, as expected. Since the cetane number of
the biodiesel was lower than that of the diesel fuel used in this study, ID
of B20 was higher than that of DF at all the engine loads. As can be seen
from the results, the SOC of the alcohol blends was later and ID was
longer than that of B20 and DF due to the lower cetane number of the
(1) alcohol fuels. These results are supported by previous studies [28–30].
In addition, as the engine load increased, more fuel was injected which
led to higher temperatures of the cylinder wall and residual gas. Thus,
ID of the test fuels decreased with the increased load because the auto-
ignition of fuel was enhanced with the increased pressure and tem-
perature.
Despite the fact that butanol has a higher cetane number than did
ethanol and methanol, the B20Bu10 was observed to have an ignition
delay equal to or higher than B20E10 and B20M10 at some engine
loads, as seen in Table 4. The reason for this is probably that butanol
has a higher kinematic viscosity and lower oxygen content than do
ethanol and methanol. High viscosity increased ID as it deteriorated
atomization and evaporation of the fuel as well as the mixing of the fuel
with the air. In addition, the low oxygen content of the fuel worsened
the combustion process and caused a longer ID. Although the methanol
had a lower cetane number than did the other two alcohols, contrary to
expectation, B20M10 had almost the same ID as B20E10 and B20Bu10.
The reason is that methanol had higher oxygen content and a lower
kinematic viscosity than did the other two alcohols. As can be seen in
Fig. 2, combustion duration of the B20 and alcohol blends was lower
than that of DF at all the loads because of the long ID and high oxygen
content.
The changes in cylinder pressure of the fuels with respect to the
crank angle under the different loads at 1500 rpm are shown in Fig. 3.
As the engine load increased, the cylinder pressure rose and reached the

Table 4
Numerical values of injection and combustion characteristics of the test fuels for different loads.

Load SOI SOC ID CD Pmax APmax Rmax ARmax HRRmax

MPa Fuel (°CA) (°CA) (°CA) (°CA) (Bar) (°CA) (bar/°CA) (°CA) (J/°CA)

0.09 DF −13.80 −5.72 8.08 31.73 70.03 2.58 8.90 −5.12 27.31
B20 −14.10 −5.58 8.52 30.61 70.22 2.24 9.13 −5.00 28.02
B20Bu10 −14.20 −4.94 9.26 28.13 70.54 2.08 9.85 −3.77 28.58
B20E10 −14.00 −4.89 9.11 29.05 71.46 2.35 10.00 −3.76 28.57
B20M10 −13.90 −4.64 9.26 27.96 71.46 2.29 9.73 −3.64 27.94

0.18 DF −13.60 −5.58 8.02 34.68 75.12 3.14 11.11 −4.53 32.48
B20 −13.90 −5.49 8.41 33.17 75.49 3.24 11.28 −4.59 32.96
B20Bu10 −13.90 −4.84 9.06 32.15 77.33 2.23 11.49 −3.26 36.87
B20E10 −13.80 −4.86 8.94 32.03 77.33 2.13 11.89 −3.10 37.09
B20M10 −13.70 −4.71 8.99 31.94 77.56 2.24 11.40 −2.70 35.86

0.27 DF −13.50 −5.53 7.97 41.11 79.61 4.57 12.61 −4.68 37.27
B20 −13.80 −5.45 8.35 39.31 80.41 4.48 13.24 −4.44 38.12
B20Bu10 −13.80 −5.04 8.76 39.25 82.35 3.38 14.76 −3.80 44.33
B20E10 −13.70 −4.85 8.85 38.93 82.66 2.78 14.86 −3.50 43.50
B20M10 −13.60 −4.86 8.74 38.17 82.10 2.94 14.81 −3.08 43.12

0.36 DF −12.90 −5.37 7.53 46.56 80.94 5.22 9.84 −4.85 28.10
B20 −13.10 −5.21 7.89 44.25 81.17 5.08 10.05 −4.89 29.71
B20Bu10 −13.40 −4.82 8.58 43.12 81.59 5.39 11.35 −3.86 31.93
B20E10 −13.30 −4.61 8.69 41.96 82.33 5.88 12.43 −3.38 34.59
B20M10 −13.20 −4.57 8.63 41.85 83.68 5.44 12.02 −3.37 34.13

374
A.O. Emiroğlu, M. Şen Applied Thermal Engineering 133 (2018) 371–380

Fig. 2. Percentage changes in the injection and combustion characteristics of the B20 and biodiesel-alcohol blends compared to the reference diesel fuel.

peak value for all the fuels with a delay because the amount of fuel (Fig. 2 and Table 4). However, due to the low cetane number of the
injected into the cylinder increased with the increased in engine load. alcohols and the rapid combustion of the fuel accumulated in the
The CPmax, Rmax, and HRRmax values of B20 and their locations were combustion chamber during the long ID, the CPmax, HRRmax and Rmax
closer to those of DF than to those of the alcohol blends at all the loads values of the alcohol blends were higher. The locations of Rmax and

Fig. 3. Change of cylinder pressure according to crank angle under different loads at 1500 rpm.

375
A.O. Emiroğlu, M. Şen Applied Thermal Engineering 133 (2018) 371–380

Fig. 4. Variations of HRR and CHRR with respect to crank angle under different loads at 1500 rpm.

HRRmax of the alcohol blends were later than those of B20 and DF for all Heat release rate is one of the ways to obtain quantitative in-
the engine loads (Fig. 4). The location of CPmax was earlier than that of formation about the progress of combustion. It refers to the rate of
B20 and DF, except 0.36 MPa (Table 4). release of the chemical energy of the fuel during the combustion

376
A.O. Emiroğlu, M. Şen
process. The changes in HRR and cumulative heat release rate (CHRR)
of the fuels with respect to the crank angle under the different loads at
1500 rpm are shown in Fig. 4. The two main phases of the combustion
(premixed and diffusion) were clearly visible in the HRR curves. In the
premixed combustion phase, a rapid combustion of the fuel accumu-
lated in the cylinder during the ignition delay resulted in a high HRR,
and the HRR peak values were reached at this phase. This was followed
by diffusion combustion where the combustion rate was controlled by
the fuel-air mixing velocity. Because of the higher ignition delay at low
loads, premixed combustion was more dominant than diffusion com-
bustion. Rapid combustion of the fuel led to high HRRmax at the pre-
mixed combustion phase. As expected, the cumulative heat release in-
creased with increasing the engine load. Despite the low heating value
of the alcohols, the HRRmax value of alcohol blends was higher than that
of B20 and DF. This is because of the higher oxygen content as well as
the lower CN and higher ID of the alcohols which in turn cause a
combustion realized in mainly the premixed mode rather than the
diffusion one. As shown in Table 4, Rmax and HRRmax increased up to
0.27 MPa with the increased load but declined again at 0.36 MPa for all
the fuels. The reason for this decline is the low premixed combustion
phase and a higher diffusion combustion phase at 0.36 MPa, thus
HRRmax and Rmax values reduced.
3.2. Engine performance
In this section, the effects of each test fuel on the engine perfor-
mance parameters such as BSFC and BTE are discussed. The BSFC of the
test fuels according to the engine load at the constant engine speed
(1500 rpm) is shown in Fig. 5. Since the heating values of the biodiesel
and alcohols were lower than those of DF, the B20 and alcohol blends
had higher BSFC values.
The BSFC values followed a similar trend for all the fuels and
reached a minimum value at 0.27 MPa, and slightly increased again at
0.36 MPa. The reason for this increase is the low premixed combustion
phase and the higher diffusion combustion phase at 0.36 MPa. Among
the alcohol blends, B20Bu10 had the lowest, B20M10 had the highest
BSFC. The heating value of the fuels plays an important role in change
of BSFC. When the fuels with a lower heating value such as biodiesel
and alcohol blends are used, the amount of injected fuel must be in-
creased to achieve an equal power output. BTE of the test fuels ac-
cording to the engine load at the constant engine speed (1500 rpm) is
shown in Fig. 6. The BTE values of all the fuels used in the experiments
were very close to each other and followed a similar trend and reached
their maximum values at 0.27 MPa, but then again slightly decreased at
0.36 MPa.
3.3. Emissions
The effects of the fuels on the NOx, smoke opacity, CO, and HC
emissions are examined in this section at the different engine loads. The
Fig. 5. Change of BSFC according to engine loads at 1500 rpm.
377
Applied Thermal Engineering 133 (2018) 371–380
Fig. 6. Change of BTE according to engine loads at 1500 rpm.
percentage changes in the exhaust emission characteristics of the bio-
diesel blend and the biodiesel-alcohol blends compared to the reference
diesel fuel are shown in Fig. 7.
3.3.1. NOx
The combustion temperature, oxygen content, and residence time
are the main factors affecting the formation of NOx. The high oxygen
contents of biodiesel and alcohols increase the combustion tempera-
ture, and thus, result in higher NOx emissions. Fig. 7 shows that the
addition of biodiesel and alcohol to diesel fuel caused a slight increase
in NOx emissions because of their low cetane number and high oxygen
content. A low cetane number resulted in a longer ignition delay which
led to a higher cylinder pressure, a higher combustion temperature, and
hence, higher NOx emissions due to the rapid combustion of the fuel
accumulated in the premixed combustion phase.
The changes in the NOx emissions of the test fuels at the different
engine loads are shown in Fig. 8. Our results showed that the NOx
emissions of all the test fuels increased in parallel with the increase in
the fuel injection amount as the engine load increased up to 0.27 MPa,
but it decreased again at 0.36 MPa. The reason for this reduction is the
low premixed combustion phase and the higher diffusion combustion
phase at 0.36 MPa. In this case, since peak pressures and temperatures
do not increase as much as 0.27 MPa, HRRmax, and consequently, NOx
emissions reduced. As shown in Fig. 7, B20M10 caused the highest
increase in NOx emissions at the high loads, 15% at 0.27 MPa and 28%
at 0.36 MPa, compared to DF, due to the low cetane number and the
high oxygen content of methanol.
3.3.2. Smoke opacity (n)
“In diesel engines, the soot or smoke emissions go through two
processes: primary soot formation and soot oxidation. The primary soot
formation in the gas phase depends on the molecular rate of collisions
and the concentrations of fuel fragments. During primary soot forma-
tion, the active radical nuclei of fuel molecules are collected to form
larger nuclei. The soot oxidation process is also based on gas phase
collisions, similar to the soot primary formation, but the molecules
must contain carbon and oxygen [32]. Despite the formation process,
the soot oxidation mechanism is proven to be the main driver of exhaust
smoke emissions [33].
The variation of the smoke opacity of the test fuels with the different
engine loads is shown in Fig. 9. With the addition of the biodiesel and
alcohols to the diesel fuel, smoke emissions reduced at all the engine
loads due to the higher oxygen content and lower C/H of biodiesel and
alcohols. High oxygen content improved combustion and reduced
smoke formation in the exhaust gas. Compared to diesel fuel, there are
fewer CeC bonds in the biodiesel and alcohol blends, resulting in the
decrease of smoke emissions. In addition, high density and viscosity
worsen the atomization and combustion of the fuel. In addition, high
density and viscosity worsened the atomization and combustion of the
fuel. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the maximum reduction of smoke
A.O. Emiroğlu, M. Şen Applied Thermal Engineering 133 (2018) 371–380

Fig. 7. Percentage changes in the exhaust emission characteristics of the biodiesel blend and biodiesel-alcohol blends compared to the reference diesel fuels.

emission was observed with the B20Bu10. Especially at the low and
medium loads, B20Bu10, on average, decreased smoke opacity by 80%
compared to DF. It was followed by B20, B20M10 and B20E10, re-
spectively. The addition of biodiesel and alcohol to diesel fuel con-
tinued to reduce smoke opacity emissions at the high loads not as much
as at the low loads. These results are similar to other studies in Refs.
[34–37].

Fig. 8. Variation of NOx emissions versus the engine loads.
3.3.3. CO
The change in CO emissions of the test fuels according to the dif-
ferent engine loads is presented in Fig. 10. The increase in the engine
load led to relatively richer regions in the cylinder due to the increase in
fuel injection quantity and led to higher CO emissions. Similar results
were reported in Refs. [38–40]. CO emissions are an indication that the
combustion has not been completed. The addition of biodiesel to diesel
fuel reduced CO emissions due to the oxygen content of biodiesel. As
the oxygen content of the fuel increased even more with the addition of

Fig. 9. Variation of smoke opacity versus the engine loads.

Fig. 10. Variation of CO emissions versus the engine loads.

378
A.O. Emiroğlu, M. Şen
Fig. 11. Variation of HC emissions versus the engine loads.
alcohol to the biodiesel blend, the alcohol blends led to further re-
ductions in CO emissions than did B20 as shown in Fig. 7.
3.3.4. HC
HC emissions are the products of incomplete combustion, similar to
CO. The change in HC emissions of the test fuels according to the dif-
ferent engine loads is presented in Fig. 11. Despite the high oxygen
content of biodiesel, the HC emission of B20 was slightly higher than
that of DF because the high density and viscosity of the biodiesel de-
teriorated fuel atomization. In addition, a possible reason for biodiesel
to have higher HC emissions than did diesel fuel may be the lower
heating value and lower combustion temperature of biodiesel.
The biodiesel-alcohol blends had higher HC emissions than did B20
and DF, while alcohol addition is expected to increase the oxygen
content of the fuel blend and lead to better combustion and lower HC
emissions. Presumably, as the heat value of the alcohols is lower, the
combustion temperature decreases and HC emission increases. The
addition of alcohol shows the cooling effect due to the high evaporation
temperatures of the alcohols, which leads to the lower temperature
inside the cylinder, resulting in incomplete combustion and high HC
emissions. Higher HC emissions might be due also to lower CN, and
thus, longer ID of the alcohol blends. Similar findings were obtained in
Refs. [41–43]. Since the methanol has a higher latent heat of eva-
poration, the combustion temperature drops due to the cooling effect of
methanol. Therefore, B20M10 caused more HC emissions than did B20
and the other two alcohol blends (Fig. 7). It was followed by B20E10,
B20Bu10 and B20, respectively.
4. Conclusions
In this study, the effects of the additions of the three alcohols to the
biodiesel blend were analyzed on combustion, performance, and ex-
haust emission characteristics of the single-cylinder diesel engine at the
different engine loads. The alcohols and biodiesel used in this study had
higher oxygen content and a lower cetane number than did DF. Also,
ethanol and methanol had a lower viscosity, whereas butanol and
biodiesel had a higher viscosity than did DF. All these fuel properties
have a significant effect on combustion behavior, engine performance
and exhaust emission characteristics. The conclusions obtained in this
study are as follows:
1. The addition of biodiesel to the diesel fuel and the addition of the
alcohols to the biodiesel blend changed the physical and chemical
properties of the fuel blends.
2. The CPmax, Rmax, and HRRmax values of B20 and their locations were
closer to those of DF than to those of the alcohol blends at all the
loads. However, due to the low cetane number of the alcohols and
the rapid combustion of the fuel accumulated in the combustion
chamber during the long ignition delay, the CPmax, HRRmax and Rmax
values of the alcohol blends were higher, and their locations were
379
Applied Thermal Engineering 133 (2018) 371–380
earlier than those of B20 and DF for all the engine loads. This dif-
ference was more apparent at the high engine loads.
3. Since the heating values of the biodiesel and alcohols were lower
than that of DF, the B20 and alcohol blends had higher BSFC values.
4. BTE values of all the fuels used in the experiments were very close to
each other and followed a similar trend and reached their maximum
values at 0.27 MPa, but then again slightly decreased at 0.36 MPa.
5. The alcohol addition seems not to lead to significant and convenient
improvements compared to the use of B20 in terms of NOx and
smoke emissions. The smoke reduction was lower or in line with
B20, except for B20M10. The NOx increment was lower only at
0.09 MPa and always higher for the blends with alcohol in the other
engine loads.
Acknowledgements
This study has been supported by the Research Project Foundation
of Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey, under contact numbers
of projects: 2015.09.05.923.
References
[1] H.K. Imdadul, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, N.W.M. Zulkifli, A. Alabdulkarem,
M. Kamruzzaman, M.M. Rashed, A comparative study of C 4 and C 5 alcohol treated
diesel–biodiesel blends in terms of diesel engine performance and exhaust emission,
Fuel 179 (2016) 281–288.
[2] W.J. Lee, Y.C. Liu, F.K. Mwangi, W.H. Chen, S.L. Lin, Y. Fukushima, C.N. Liao,
L.C. Wang, Assessment of energy performance and air pollutant emissions in a
diesel engine generator fueled with water-containing ethanol-biodiesel-diesel blend
of fuels, Energy 36 (2011) 5591–5599.
[3] H.K. Rashedul, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, A.M. Ashraful, S.M. Ashrafur Rahman,
S.A. Shahir, The effect of additives on properties, performance and emission of
biodiesel fuelled compression ignition engine, Energy Convers. Manage. 88 (2014)
348–364.
[4] M.F. Al-Dawody, S.K. Bhatti, Experimental and computational investigations for
combustion, performance and emission parameters of a diesel engine fueled with
soybean biodiesel-diesel blends, Energy Proc. 421–430 (2014).
[5] H.M. Mahmudul, F.Y. Hagos, R. Mamat, A.A. Adam, W.F.W. Ishak, R. Alenezi,
Production, characterization and performance of biodiesel as an alternative fuel in
diesel engines–a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 72 (2017) 497–509.
[6] H.G. How, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, Y.H. Teoh, Engine performance, emission and
combustion characteristics of a common-rail diesel engine fuelled with bioethanol
as a fuel additive in coconut oil biodiesel blends, Energy Proc. 1655–1659 (2014).
[7] M.H.M. Yasin, R. Mamat, A.F. Yusop, R. Rahim, A. Aziz, L.A. Shah, Fuel physical
characteristics of biodiesel blend fuels with alcohol as additives, Proc. Eng. (2013)
701–706.
[8] A. Datta, B.K. Mandal, Impact of alcohol addition to diesel on the performance
combustion and emissions of a compression ignition engine, Appl. Therm. Eng. 98
(2016) 670–682.
[9] J. Campos-Fernandez, J.M. Arnal, J. Gomez, N. Lacalle, M.P. Dorado, Performance
tests of a diesel engine fueled with pentanol/diesel fuel blends, Fuel 107 (2013)
866–872.
[10] O. Doğan, The influence of n-butanol/diesel fuel blends utilization on a small diesel
engine performance and emissions, Fuel 90 (2011) 2467–2472.
[11] M. Lapuerta, O. Armas, J.M. Herreros, Emissions from a diesel-bioethanol blend in
an automotive diesel engine, Fuel 87 (2008) 25–31.
[12] C. Sayin, Engine performance and exhaust gas emissions of methanol and ethanol-
diesel blends, Fuel 89 (2010) 3410–3415.
[13] C. Sayin, A.N. Ozsezen, M. Canakci, The influence of operating parameters on the
performance and emissions of a DI diesel engine using methanol-blended-diesel
fuel, Fuel 89 (2010) 1407–1414.
[14] C. Yao, C.S. Cheung, C. Cheng, Y. Wang, T.L. Chan, S.C. Lee, Effect of diesel/me-
thanol compound combustion on diesel engine combustion and emissions, Energy
Convers. Manage. 49 (2008) 1696–1704.
[15] Ö. Can, I. Çelikten, N. Usta, Effects of ethanol addition on performance and emis-
sions of a turbocharged indirect injection Diesel engine running at different injec-
tion pressures, Energy Convers. Manage. 45 (2004) 2429–2440.
[16] M.R. Chao, T.C. Lin, H.R. Chao, F.H. Chang, C.B. Chen, Effects of methanol-con-
taining additive on emission characteristics from a heavy-duty diesel engine, Sci.
Total Environ. 279 (2001) 167–179.
[17] C.D. Rakopoulos, K.A. Antonopoulos, D.C. Rakopoulos, Experimental heat release
analysis and emissions of a HSDI diesel engine fueled with ethanol-diesel fuel
blends, Energy 32 (2007) 1791–1808.
[18] M.H.M. Yasin, R. Mamat, A.F. Yusop, A. Aziz, G. Najafi, Comparative study on
biodiesel-methanol-diesel low proportion blends operating with a diesel engine,
Energy Proc. (2015) 10–16.
[19] J. Liu, A. Yao, C. Yao, Effects of diesel injection pressure on the performance and
emissions of a HD common-rail diesel engine fueled with diesel/methanol dual fuel,
Fuel 140 (2015) 192–200.
A.O. Emiroğlu, M. Şen
[20] A. Demirbas, Progress and recent trends in biofuels, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 33
(2007) 1–18.
[21] C. Guido, C. Beatrice, P. Napolitano, Application of bioethanol/RME/diesel blend in
a Euro5 automotive diesel engine: potentiality of closed loop combustion control
technology, Appl. Energy 102 (2013) 13–23.
[22] P.V. Bhale, N.V. Deshpande, S.B. Thombre, Improving the low temperature prop-
erties of biodiesel fuel, Renew. Energy 34 (2009) 794–800.
[23] L. Zhu, C.S. Cheung, W.G. Zhang, Z. Huang, Combustion, performance and emission
characteristics of a di diesel engine fueled with ethanol-biodiesel blends, Fuel 90
(2011) 1743–1750.
[24] M. Senthil Kumar, A. Ramesh, B. Nagalingam, An experimental comparison of
methods to use methanol and Jatropha oil in a compression ignition engine,
Biomass Bioenergy 25 (2003) 309–318.
[25] M.S. Kumar, A. Kerihuel, J. Bellettre, M. Tazerout, Ethanol animal fat emulsions as
a diesel engine fuel - part 2: engine test analysis, Fuel 85 (2006) 2646–2652.
[26] N. Yilmaz, F.M. Vigil, K. Benalil, S.M. Davis, A. Calva, Effect of biodiesel-butanol
fuel blends on emissions and performance characteristics of a diesel engine, Fuel
135 (2014) 46–50.
[27] E. Tosun, A.C. Yilmaz, M. Ozcanli, K. Aydin, Determination of effects of various
alcohol additions into peanut methyl ester on performance and emission char-
acteristics of a compression ignition engine, Fuel 126 (2014) 38–43.
[28] X. Wang, C.S. Cheung, Y. Di, Y.Z. Huang, Diesel engine gaseous and particle
emissions fueled with diesel–oxygenate blends, Fuel 94 (2012) 317–323.
[29] Z. Huang, H. Lu, D. Jiang, K. Zeng, B. Liu, J. Zhang, X. Wang, Combustion behaviors
of a compression-ignition engine fuelled with diesel/methanol blends under various
fuel delivery advance angles, Bioresour. Technol. 95 (2004) 331–341.
[30] Y. Ren, Z. Huang, H. Miao, Y. Di, D. Jiang, K. Zeng, X. Wang, Combustion and
emissions of a DI diesel engine fuelled with diesel-oxygenate blends, Fuel 87 (2008)
2691–2697.
[31] J.B. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, vol. 930, Mcgraw-Hill,
New York, 1988.
[32] P.Q. Tan, Z.Y. Hu, D.M. Lou, Z.J. Li, Exhaust emissions from a light-duty diesel
engine with Jatropha biodiesel fuel, Energy 39 (2012) 356–362.
380
Applied Thermal Engineering 133 (2018) 371–380
[33] Y. Gallo, J. Simonsson, T. Lind, P. Bengtsson, A Study of In-Cylinder Soot Oxidation
by Laser Extinction Measurements During an EGR-Sweep in an Optical Diesel
Engine, SAE Technical Paper, 2015-01-0800.
[34] C. Sayin, M. Ilhan, M. Canakci, M. Gumus, Effect of injection timing on the exhaust
emissions of a diesel engine using diesel–methanol blends, Renew. Energy 34
(2009) 1261–1269.
[35] M. Gumus, C. Sayin, M. Canakci, The impact of fuel injection pressure on the ex-
haust emissions of a direct injection diesel engine fueled with biodiesel–diesel fuel
blends, Fuel 95 (2012) 486–494.
[36] B.S. Chauhan, N. Kumar, H.M. Cho, A study on the performance and emission of a
diesel engine fueled with Jatropha biodiesel oil and its blends, Energy 37 (2012)
616–622.
[37] V. Pradeep, R.P. Sharma, Use of HOT EGR for NOx control in a compression ignition
engine fuelled with bio-diesel from Jatropha oil, Renew. Energy 32 (2007)
1136–1154.
[38] A.S. Ramadhas, C. Muraleedharan, S. Jayaraj, Performance and emission evaluation
of a diesel engine fueled with methyl esters of rubber seed oil, Renew. Energy 30
(2005) 1789–1800.
[39] B.Q. He, S.J. Shuai, J.X. Wang, H. He, The effect of ethanol blended diesel fuels on
emissions from a diesel engine, Atmosp. Environ. 37 (2003) 4965–4971.
[40] D. Agarwal, A.K. Agarwal, Performance and emissions characteristics of Jatropha
oil (preheated and blends) in a direct injection compression ignition engine, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 27 (2007) 2314–2323.
[41] G. Labeckas, S. Slavinskas, The effect of rapeseed oil methyl ester on direct injection
diesel engine performance and exhaust emissions, Energy Convers. Manage. 47
(2006) 1954–1967.
[42] D.C. Rakopoulos, C.D. Rakopoulos, E.G. Giakoumis, A.M. Dimaratos, D.C. Kyritsis,
Effects of butanol–diesel fuel blends on the performance and emissions of a high-
speed DI diesel engine, Energy Convers. Manage. 51 (2010) 1989–1997.
[43] M. Gumus, S. Kasifoglu, Performance and emission evaluation of a compression
ignition engine using a biodiesel (apricot seed kernel oil methyl ester) and its blends
with diesel fuel, Biomass Bioenergy 34 (2010) 134–139.