Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1989–1997

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Effects of butanol–diesel fuel blends on the performance and emissions

of a high-speed DI diesel engine
D.C. Rakopoulos a, C.D. Rakopoulos a,*, E.G. Giakoumis a, A.M. Dimaratos a, D.C. Kyritsis b
a
Internal Combustion Engines Laboratory, Department of Thermal Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens,
Zografou Campus, 9 Heroon Polytechniou St., 15780 Athens, Greece
b
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, 1206 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

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

Article history: An experimental investigation is conducted to evaluate the effects of using blends of n-butanol (normal
Received 8 July 2009 butanol) with conventional diesel fuel, with 8%, 16% and 24% (by volume) n-butanol, on the performance
Accepted 18 February 2010 and exhaust emissions of a standard, fully instrumented, four-stroke, high-speed, direct injection (DI),
Available online 19 March 2010
Ricardo/Cussons ‘Hydra’ diesel engine located at the authors’ laboratory. The tests are conducted using
each of the above fuel blends or neat diesel fuel, with the engine working at a speed of 2000 rpm and
Keywords: at three different loads. In each test, fuel consumption, exhaust smokiness and exhaust regulated gas
Butanol–diesel fuel blends
emissions such as nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and total unburned hydrocarbons are measured.
High-speed diesel engine
Performance
The differences in the measured performance and exhaust emission parameters of the three butanol–die-
Emissions sel fuel blends from the baseline operation of the diesel engine, i.e., when working with neat diesel fuel,
are determined and compared. It is revealed that this fuel, which can be produced from biomass (bio-
butanol), forms a challenging and promising bio-fuel for diesel engines. The differing physical and chem-
ical properties of butanol against those for the diesel fuel are used to aid the correct interpretation of the
observed engine behavior.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction non-oil producing countries and, meanwhile, have come to repre-

Engine manufacturers worldwide have achieved to develop die-
sel engines with high thermal efficiency and specific power output,
always trying to keep inside the limits of the imposed emission
regulations that every day becomes more stringent. Significant
achievements for the development of cleaner diesel engines have
been made, over the last decades, by following various engine-re-
lated techniques, e.g. the use of common-rail systems, fuel injec-
tion control strategies, exhaust gas recirculation, exhaust gas
after-treatment, etc. [1,2].
Furthermore, especially for the reduction of pollutant emis-
sions, researchers have focused their interest on the domain of
fuel-related techniques, such as for example the use of alternative
gaseous fuels of renewable nature, which are friendly to the envi-
ronment or oxygenated fuels, which are able to reduce particulate
emissions [3–8]. Sometimes, for obtaining the desirable results, re-
sort is being made to the simultaneous use of engine- and fuel-re-
lated techniques [9].
Dwindling crude oil reserves and their increasing prices have
placed increasingly sensitive loads on the trade balances of the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 210 7723529; fax: +30 210 7723531.
E-mail addresses: cdrakops@central.ntua.gr (C.D. Rakopoulos), kyritsis@uiuc.edu
(D.C. Kyritsis).
sent a threat to the existence of the developing and industrialized
countries. Thus, considerable attention has been paid on the devel-
opment of alternative fuel sources in various countries, with par-
ticular emphasis on the bio-fuels that possess the added
advantage of being renewable fuels that can be replenished
through the growth of plants or production of livestock, showing
an ad hoc advantage in reducing the emitted carbon dioxide
[10,11]. There is a commitment by the USA government to increas-
ing bio-energy threefold in 10 years, which has added impetus to
the search for viable bio-fuels [12].
Given the depleting supply of fossil-based fuel sources and the
likely need for logistics managers to increasingly consider alterna-
tive fuel sources, in Ref. [13] fossil-based fuels with their most
commonly discussed potential alternatives are contrasted. Specifi-
cally, these authors evaluated six fuel types using analytical hierar-
chy process (AHP) as a method to compare their total product
viability in a formalized manner; they examined the viability of
petroleum gasoline (the current source fossil fuel for the vast
majority of energy requirements of today’s logistics systems)
versus five potential alternatives, viz. hybrid electric vehicles,
hydrogen fuel cells, bio-diesel, bio-ethanol and bio-butanol, stress-
ing the importance of the latter new bio-fuel.
Concerning the environmental aspect, rational and effi-
cient end-use technologies are identified as key options for the

0196-8904/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2010.02.032
1990 D.C. Rakopoulos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1989–1997
achievement of the Kyoto targets of greenhouse gas emissions
reduction. For the transport sector of the European Union (EU), en-
ergy savings of 5–10% in the medium term and an aggregated of
25% in the long term (2020) are aimed at, with an expected cut
of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 8% by the year 2010. The
European Union has issued a directive on the use of bio-fuels
accounting to at least 5.75% of the market for gasoline and diesel
fuel sold as transport fuels by the end of 2010 [14,15].
Bio-fuels made from agricultural products (oxygenated by nat-
ure), may not only offer benefits in terms of exhaust emissions, but
also reduce the world’s dependence on oil imports. Furthermore,
local agricultural industries can be supported and farming incomes
enhanced, besides providing a better energy security for many
developing countries. Among those, bio-alcohols and vegetable oils
or their derived bio-diesels (methyl or ethyl esters) are considered
as very promising fuels. Works on the use of vegetable oils and bio-
diesels in diesel engines have been reported for example in Refs.
[15–20].
Because of its high octane number, ethanol is a good spark–igni-
tion engine fuel, while vegetable oils and bio-diesels are good die-
sel engine fuels owing to their reasonably high cetane number. It is
true that alcohols, mainly ethanol and to a much lesser extent
methanol, have been considered as alternative fuels for diesel en-
gines too [12,21,22]. Methanol can be produced from coal or petrol
based fuels with low cost production, but it has a restrictive solu-
bility in the diesel fuel. On the other hand, ethanol is a biomass
based renewable fuel, which can be produced by alcoholic fermen-
tation of sugar from vegetable materials, such as corn, sugar cane,
sugar beets, barley, sweet sorghum, cassava, molasses and the like,
and agricultural residues, such as straw, feedstock and waste
woods by using already improved and demonstrated technologies
[10,23].
Therefore, ethanol has the advantage over methanol of higher
miscibility with the diesel fuel and of being of renewable nature
(bio-ethanol). Works on the use of ethanol in diesel engines, with
the main purpose of smoke reduction, have been reported for
example in Refs. [24–33].
Nonetheless, there are several critical issues to consider with
the use of ethanol in the diesel fuel. While anhydrous ethanol is
soluble in gasoline, additives must be used in order to ensure sol-
ubility of anhydrous ethanol (that is highly hygroscopic and thus
practically impossible to stay as such) in the diesel fuel under a
wide range of conditions, especially at lower temperatures. Fur-
thermore, ethanol possesses lower viscosity and adding ethanol
to diesel fuel can reduce lubricity and create potential wear prob-
lems in sensitive fuel pump designs. Ethanol, apart from having a
lower calorific value than diesel fuel, possesses a very low cetane
number that reduces the cetane level of the diesel–ethanol blend,
requiring normally the use of cetane enhancing additives for
improving ignition delay and mitigating cyclic irregularity [34–
37]. Ethanol has much lower flash point than the diesel fuel and
higher vapor formation potential in confined spaces, thus requiring
extra precautions to ensure safe handling and use of these blends
[12].
Thus, various techniques involving ethanol–diesel dual fuel
operation have been developed, to make diesel engine technology
compatible with the properties of ethanol-based fuels. They can be
divided into the following three categories: (i) ethanol fumigation
to the intake air charge by using carburetion or manifold injection
[24–26,28], (ii) dual injection system [24], and (iii) blends (emul-
sions) of ethanol and diesel fuel by using an emulsifier to mix
the two fuels [24,27,29–33].
Bio-fuel production is a rapidly growing industry in many parts
of the world. Ethanol and bio-diesel are the primary alternatives at
present to gasoline for spark–ignition engines or diesel fuel for
compression–ignition (diesel) engines, respectively. However,
other bio-fuels such as bio-butanol, biomass-derived hydrocarbon
fuels and hydrogen in the longer term are being researched at pres-
ent and may be regarded as the next generation fuels [10].
A very challenging alcohol competitor for use in diesel engines
is butanol, which, nonetheless, has not been experimented with on
diesel engines. Butanol is of particular interest as a renewable bio-
fuel, as it is less hydrophilic and it possesses higher heating value,
higher cetane number, lower vapor pressure, and higher miscibility
than ethanol, making butanol preferable to ethanol for blending
with conventional diesel fuel. Therefore, all the disadvantages
mentioned in the previous section of ethanol as a diesel fuel are
highly mitigated when using butanol, which has properties closer
to diesel fuel than ethanol and more so than methanol [10,38]. Ta-
ble 1 provides the base properties of ethanol and n-butanol (nor-
mal butanol) as well as of the Greek automotive, low sulphur
(0.035%) diesel fuel (gas oil), which was used as the baseline fuel
for the present experiments.
Like ethanol, butanol is a biomass based renewable fuel that can
be produced by alcoholic fermentation of the biomass feed-stocks
referred to above (bio-butanol). It is very coincidental that new and
innovative processes for managing and utilizing the crude glycerol
co-product from the bio-diesel production processes have been
developed [39], which convert, for example, by anaerobic fermen-
tation [40] the crude glycerol to significant yields of the value
added products of mainly butanol, and 1,3-propanediol (PDO)
and ethanol. This is very fortunate, since the increasing demand
of bio-diesel production causes great problems with the disposal
of the by-produced crude glycerol (10% by weight of the total) by
the bio-diesel producers, given that its conversion to pure glycerol
is no longer financially feasible due to the falling prices of the high
quantities available then for its market uses.
A primary factor that distinguishes fuel alcohols and bio-diesel
from petroleum-based fuels is the presence of oxygen bound in the
molecular structure. Alcohols are defined by the presence of a hy-
droxyl group (–OH) attached to one of the carbon atoms. For exam-
ple, the molecular structure of methanol is CH3OH, of ethanol
C2H5OH and that of butanol C4H9OH. Butanol has a 4-carbon struc-
ture and is a more complex alcohol (higher-chain) than ethanol as
the carbon atoms can either form a straight-chain or a branched
structure, thus resulting in different properties. It exists as differ-
ent isomers, based on the location of the hydroxyl group (–OH)
and carbon chain structure. It is mentioned that butanol produc-
tion from biomass tends to yield mainly straight chain molecules.
The molecular structure of butanol isomers are shown in Fig. 1
[10]. 1-Butanol, also better known as n-butanol (normal butanol),
has a straight-chain structure with the hydroxyl group (–OH) at
the terminal carbon. This is the isomer used in the present exper-
imental study.
The present research group has already reported the effects of
using various blends of ethanol with conventional diesel fuel on
the performance and exhaust emissions for the engine used in
the present study, at various loads [32]. An emulsifying agent
was used to satisfy ethanol–diesel fuel mixture homogeneity and
prevent phase separation, while no ignition-improving additives
were used. The differences in the performance and exhaust emis-
sion parameters, from the baseline operation of the diesel engine
(working with diesel fuel), were determined and compared.
At this point it is stated that there seems to be an obvious scar-
city of theoretical models scrutinizing the formation mechanisms
of combustion-generated emissions when using liquid bio-fuels,
unlike the advanced models existing for the study of diesel engines
when using conventional diesel fuel [1,41–44]. Recently, a detailed
multi-zone combustion modeling with ethanol–diesel blends has
been reported [45] by this research group, along the lines of a sim-
ilar paper [46] applied for the engine in hand when using vegetable
oils or their derived bio-diesels, which has in turn expanded on a
 D.C. Rakopoulos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1989–1997
Table 1
Properties of diesel fuel, n-butanol and ethanol.
Fuel properties Diesel n-Butanol
fuel C4H9OH
Density at 20 °C, kg/m3 837 810
Cetane number 50 25
Lower calorific value, MJ/kg 43 33.1
Kinematic viscosity at 40 °C, mm2/s 2.6 3.6a
Boiling point 180–360 118
Latent heat of evaporation, kJ/kg 250 585
Oxygen, %wt. 0 21.6
Stoichiometric air–fuel ratio 15.0 11.2
Molecular weight 170 74
a
Measured at 20 °C.
Fig. 1. Molecular structure of butanol isomers.
similar multi-zone one that has dealt only with the related physical
processes [47]. As a ‘bridging’ agent for correctly interpreting the
previous ethanol–diesel blends results and with a view to assist
the related multi-zone combustion modeling, a heat release analy-
sis for the relevant combustion mechanism, combined with the
widely differing physical and chemical properties of the ethanol
against those for the diesel fuel, were used by the authors in Ref.
[48] for the same engine, ethanol–diesel fuel blends and operating
conditions. Also, a work has appeared recently [49] for this same
engine with the above ethanol–diesel fuel blends and operating
conditions, evaluating its combustion characteristics using experi-
mental–stochastic techniques [50] and its propensity for combus-
tion cyclic variability given the low cetane number of ethanol [51].
The open literature concerning the use of butanol–diesel fuel
blends in diesel engines and its effects on their performance and
exhaust emissions is nearly absent. To the authors’ knowledge,
only one such work exists [52], with drive cycle analysis of n-buta-
nol/diesel blends in a light-duty turbo-diesel vehicle. Two more
works by another group [53,54] deal with the performance and ex-
haust emission characteristics of diesel engine fuelled with vegeta-
ble oils blended with oxygenated organic compounds, including
ethanol and n-butanol. Also, in Ref. [55] a very small quantity of
n-butanol was used only for the purpose of improving the solubil-
ity of the ethanol–diesel fuel blends used.
From the above, it is made obvious that a major gap exists for
the performance and environmental behavior of this challenging
next generation fuel, especially concerning its use in diesel en-
gines. Filling or rather starting to fill this gap, the present work re-
ports the results of such an experimental investigation conducted
at the authors’ laboratory on a standard experimental, Ricardo/
Cussons ‘Hydra’, high-speed, direct injection (DI), naturally aspi-
rated diesel engine of automotive type (with no modification on
it), which possesses a high versatility and control over the variation
1991
of its operating parameters. The work evaluates the effects of using
various blends of n-butanol (99.9% purity) with normal diesel fuel,
Ethanol with 8%, 16% and 24% (by volume) n-butanol, on the performance
C2H5OH and exhaust emissions at various loads. The differences in the per-
788 formance and exhaust emission parameters from the baseline
8 operation of the diesel engine (working with diesel fuel) were
26.8 determined and compared. Consideration of theoretical aspects
1.2
78
of diesel engine combustion and of the differing physical and
840 chemical properties of the butanol against those for the diesel fuel
34.8 were used to aid, in a qualitative way, the interpretation of the ob-
9.0 served engine behavior with these blends.
46
2. Experimental facilities and fuels tested
2.1. Engine description
Facilities to monitor and control engine variables such as engine
speed, load, water and lube-oil temperatures, fuel and air flows,
etc., are installed on a fully automated test bed, single-cylinder,
four-stroke, water cooled, Ricardo–Cussons, ‘‘Hydra”, high-speed,
experimental standard engine located at the authors’ laboratory.
This engine has the ability to operate on the Otto (spark–ignition)
or direct injection (DI) diesel or indirect injection (IDI) diesel, four-
stroke principle, by changing various parts of the crank gear mech-
anism, cylinder and head.
For the present investigation it is used as a naturally aspirated,
DI diesel engine having a re-entrant bowl-in-piston combustion
chamber. The engine and injection system basic data are given in
Table 2. Fig. 2 gives a full schematic arrangement of the engine test
bed, instrumentation and data logging system.
2.2. Test installation description
The engine is mounted on a fully automated test bed and cou-
pled to a ‘‘McClure” DC motoring dynamometer, having load
absorbing and motoring capabilities, which is equipped with a load
cell for the engine torque measurements. There is one electric sen-
sor for speed and one for load (torque), with these signals fed to
indicators on the control panel and to the controller via knobs on
the control panel, the operator can set the dynamometer to control
speed or load. There is also a capability of setting automatically the
static injection timing from a switch on the control panel.
Electrically driven pumps assure the coolant (water) and lube-
oil circulation, with the temperature controlled by water-fed heat
exchangers. The secondary water-cooling system for these heat
exchangers was shop made, comprising a big water tank and a cor-
Table 2
Engine and injection system basic data.
Engine model Ricardo/Cussons ‘Hydra’
and type Single-cylinder, compression–ignition, direct
injection, naturally aspirated, four-stroke, water
cooled, high-speed
Speed range 1000–4500 rpm
Bore/stroke 80.26 mm/88.90 mm
Compression ratio 19.8:1
Inlet valve It opens at 8° CA before TDC
It closes at 42° CA after BDC
Exhaust valve It opens at 60° CA before BDC
It closes at 12° CA after TDC
Fuel pump ‘Bosch’ with 11 mm diameter plunger
Injector body and nozzle ‘Bosch’ with four injector nozzle holes
Nozzle hole diameter: 0.25 mm
Opening pressure: 250 bar
Advance (at pump spill): 0–40° CA
CA means crank angle. TDC means top dead center. BDC means bottom dead center.
1992 D.C. Rakopoulos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1989–1997

Data Acquisition PC
Card
Exhaust
NOx HC CO

Filter

Smoke
Amplifier
Cyl. presure
Inj. presure
Fuel Measure-
Air ment
Measure-
ment TDC pick up

Ricardo
Hydra
Diesel Electric
Shaft Dynamometer
Engine
Oil Water
Throttle position
Injection timing
Fuel quantity

COOLING MODULE

Control Load Control

ACU

Oil and
Water supply water
return
pumps

CONVERTER 3ph. mains

CABINET
Control

Console 1ph. mains

Fig. 2. Schematic arrangement of the engine test bed, instrumentation and data logging system.

responding (secondary) heat exchanger. Heaters are used to main-
tain oil and coolant temperatures during warm up and light load
conditions. Thermocouples are located at strategic points in the en-
gine, with their indications shown on a multi-point electronic tem-
perature indicator. The engine exhaust system is connected to a
shop made silencer system. A viscous type, ‘Alcock’ laminar flow-
meter is used for measuring the air-flow aspirated by the engine.
A shop made tank and flow-metering system is used for fuel
consumption measurements of the various blend samples as fol-
lows. A glass burette of known volume was placed in parallel to
the 3.5-l tank, and the time taken for its complete evacuation of
the fuel sample feeding the engine was measured. A system of
pipes and valves was constructed in order to achieve a quick drain
of a fuel sample, including the return-fuel from the pump and
injector, and the refill of metering system with the new fuel
sample.
2.3. Exhaust gas analyzers system
The exhaust gas analysis system consists of a group of analyzers
for measuring soot (smoke), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monox-
ide and total unburned hydrocarbons (HC). The smoke level in the
exhaust gas was measured with a ‘Bosch’ RTT-100 opacimeter, the
readings of which are directly provided as Hartridge units (% opac-
ity) or equivalent smoke (soot) density (milligrams of soot per cu-
bic meter of exhaust gases).
The carbon monoxide concentration in ppm (parts per million,
by volume) in the exhaust was measured with a ‘Signal’ Series-
7200 non-dispersive infrared analyzer (NDIR). The nitrogen oxides
concentration in ppm in the exhaust were measured with a ‘Signal’
Series-4000 chemiluminescent analyzer (CLA). The total unburned
hydrocarbons concentration (in ppm) in the exhaust were mea-
sured with a ‘Ratfisch-Instruments’ flame-ionization detector
(FID). The last two analyzers were fitted with thermostatically con-
trolled heated lines.
2.4. Properties of fuels
The conventional diesel fuel, which forms the baseline fuel of
this study, was supplied by Aspropyrgos Refineries of the ‘Hellenic
Petroleum SA’, representing the typical, Greek automotive, low sul-
phur (0.035%) diesel fuel (gas oil).
The isomer of butanol (C4H9OH) n-butanol (otherwise called
1-butanol), having a straight-chain structure and the hydroxyl
group (–OH) at the terminal carbon, was used in the present
study. It was of 99.9% purity (analytical grade). It was blended
with the normal diesel fuel at blending ratios of 8/92, 16/84
and 24/76 (by volume). Preliminary evaluation tests on the solu-
bility of n-butanol in the diesel fuel with blending ratios up to
40/60 proved, actually, that the mixing was excellent with no
phase separation at all for a period of many days. Then, no emul-
sifying agent was necessary.
The properties of the diesel fuel and the n-butanol are summa-
rized in Table 1, together with the corresponding properties of
its lower-chain alcohol counterpart ethanol, for comparative
purposes.
 D.C. Rakopoulos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1989–1997 1993

3. Parameters tested and experimental procedure
The experiments were performed without any modification on
the engine. The series of tests are conducted using each of the
above fuel blends, with the engine working at a speed of
2000 rpm, at a static (pump spill) injection timing of 29° crank an-
gle before top dead center (TDC), and at a low, medium and high
load corresponding to brake mean effective pressures (b.m.e.p.) of
1.40, 2.57 and 5.37 bar, respectively. Owing to the differences
among the lower calorific values H and oxygen contents of the
fuels tested, the comparison must be effected at the same engine
brake mean effective pressure, i.e. load, and not at the same in-
jected fuel mass or air/fuel ratio.
In each test, volumetric fuel consumption rate Vfc (in m3/s), ex-
haust gas temperature, exhaust smokiness and exhaust regulated
gas emissions such as nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and total
unburned hydrocarbons are measured. From the first measure-
ment, specific fuel consumption and thermal efficiency are com-
puted using the fuel sample density and lower calorific value.
By knowing the engine brake torque Mt (in N m), i.e. the load,
which is set for each experiment and kept constant by the engine
controllers, the following engine performance quantities were
computed, with N the (constant) engine speed (in rpm):
– The brake mean effective pressure, b.m.e.p. (in bar)
b:m:e:p: ¼ ð4pMt =V h Þ  105 :
2
with Vh = (p/4)D s the (single-cylinder) engine displacement
volume
– The brake power, P (in W)
P ¼ M t ð2pN=60Þ:
– The brake specific fuel consumption, b.s.f.c. (in g/kW h)
b:s:f :c: ¼ ðV fc qf =PÞ3:6  109 :
– The brake thermal efficiency, b.t.e.
b:t:e: ¼ P=ðV fc qf HÞ:
Table 3 shows the accuracy of the measurements and the uncer-
tainty of the computed results of the various parameters.
The experimental work started with a preliminary investigation
of the engine running on neat diesel fuel, in order to determine the
engine operating characteristics and exhaust emission levels, con-
stituting the ‘baseline’ that is compared with the corresponding
cases when using the butanol–diesel fuel blends. The same proce-
dure was repeated for each fuel blend by keeping the same operat-
and the engine was left to run for about 30 min to stabilize at its
new condition.
Owing to the high flexibility of this versatile ‘standard’ experi-
mental engine, it was possible to keep constant (automatically)
sensitive operating parameters of the engine circuits, such as for
example the oil and cooling water temperatures, which can influ-
ence mainly the exhaust emission levels, thus increasing the cred-
ibility for comparing the measured values. The differences in the
measured performance and exhaust emission parameters from
the baseline operation of the engine, i.e., when working with neat
diesel fuel, were determined and compared.
4. Discussion of the experimental performance and emissions
results and their interpretation
All figures to follow provide, in a bar chart arrangement, each
emission or performance parameter for the neat diesel fuel and
its blends with 8%, 16% and 24% (by volume) n-butanol, at the three
loads (low, medium and high) with corresponding brake mean
effective pressures of 1.40, 2.57 and 5.37 bar.
It is pointed out from the outset that fundamental studies con-
cerning physical (e.g. spray behavior) or chemical aspects of buta-
nol in engines are absent. Thus, to aid the correct interpretation of
the observed engine behavior, the differing physical and chemical
properties of butanol against those for the diesel fuel will be used,
taking also into account, where appropriate, the diesel engine
ð1Þ
behavior with corresponding ethanol–diesel fuel blends. It is ex-
pected that the relatively high cetane number and solubility in
the diesel fuel does not lead easily to cyclic irregularity as it hap-
pens with the corresponding ethanol blends. This was actually ob-
served here, where the investigation was extended without
problems up to high butanol–diesel fuel blending ratios.
ð2Þ Fig. 3 shows the exhaust smoke (soot) density for the neat die-
sel fuel and the various percentages of butanol in its blends with
diesel fuel. One can observe that the soot emitted by the buta-
ð3Þ nol–diesel fuel blends is significantly lower than that for the corre-
sponding neat diesel fuel case, with the reduction being higher the
higher the percentage of butanol in the blend. This may be attrib-
uted to the engine running effectively overall ‘leaner’, since the
ð4Þ aspirated air mass remains the same [48], with the combustion
being now assisted by the presence of the fuel-bound oxygen of
160
Diesel
8% Butanol
16% Butanol
120 24% Butanol
Soot Density (mg/m3)

ing conditions. For every fuel change, the fuel lines were cleaned

Table 3
Accuracy of measurements and uncertainty of computed results. 80
Measurements Accuracy
Soot density ±1 mg/m3
NOx ±5 ppm
CO ±3 ppm
HC ±1 ppm 40
Time ±0.5%
Speed ±2 rpm
Torque ±0.1 N m
Computed results Uncertainty (%)
0
Fuel volumetric flow rate ±1
Power ±1 b.m.e.p. : 1.40 bar 2.57 bar 5.37 bar
Specific fuel consumption ±1.5
Efficiency ±1.5 Fig. 3. Emitted soot (smoke) density, at the three loads, for the neat diesel fuel and
the 8%, 16% and 24% butanol blends.
1994 D.C. Rakopoulos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1989–1997

1400 400
Diesel Diesel 16% Butanol
8% Butanol 8% Butanol 24% Butanol
1200
16% Butanol
320
24% Butanol
1000

240
NOX (ppm)

CO (ppm)
800

600
160

400

80
200

0 0
b.m.e.p. : 1.40 bar 2.57 bar 5.37 bar
b.m.e.p. : 1.40 bar 2.57 bar 5.37 bar
Fig. 4. Emitted nitrogen oxides (NOx), at the three loads, for the neat diesel fuel and
Fig. 5. Emitted carbon monoxide (CO), at the three loads, for the neat diesel fuel
the 8%, 16% and 24% butanol blends.
and the 8%, 16% and 24% butanol blends.

the butanol even in locally rich zones, which seems to have the
dominant influence [7]. It was reported in Refs. [30,31], that in-cyl- 120
inder combustion photography showed indeed lower luminosity Diesel 16% Butanol
flames for the ethanol blends, revealing the lower net soot pro- 8% Butanol 24% Butanol
duced, and this may be applicable for butanol too.
100
Fig. 4 shows the nitrogen oxides (NOx) exhaust emissions for the
neat diesel fuel and the various percentages of the butanol in its
blends with diesel fuel. One can observe that the NOx emitted by
the butanol blends are slightly lower than those for the corre- 80
sponding neat diesel fuel case, with the reduction being higher
HC (ppm)

the higher the percentage of butanol in the blend. This may be

attributed to the engine running overall ‘leaner’ and the tempera-
ture lowering effect of the butanol (due to its lower calorific value
and its higher heat of evaporation) having the dominant influence,
against the opposing effect of the lower cetane number (and thus
longer ignition delay) of the butanol leading possibly to higher
temperatures during the premixed part of combustion. This is a
delicate balance weighting more on the one or the other side,
depending on the specific engine and its operating conditions
[22], which for example may be disclosed by the details of a suc-
cessful multi-zone model [45–47].
Fig. 5 shows the carbon monoxide (CO) exhaust emissions for
the neat diesel fuel and the various percentages of the butanol in
its blends with diesel fuel. One can observe that the CO emitted
by the butanol–diesel fuel blends is generally lower than that for
the corresponding neat diesel fuel case, with the reduction being
higher the higher the percentage of butanol in the blend. Conclu-
sively, the emitted CO follows the same behavior as the emitted
soot by the engine, a fact collectively attributed to the same phys-
ical and chemical mechanisms affecting almost in the same way, at
least qualitatively, the net formation of these emissions.
Fig. 6 shows the total unburned hydrocarbons (HC) exhaust
emissions for the neat diesel fuel and the various percentages of
the butanol in its blends with diesel fuel. One can observe that
the HC emitted by the butanol–diesel fuel blends are higher than
those for the corresponding neat diesel fuel case, with the increase
being higher the higher the percentage of butanol in the blend. This
is the behavior reported by almost all investigators on various
types of engines and conditions with ethanol–diesel fuel blends
[22]. As known, the formation of unburned hydrocarbons origi-
nates from various sources in the engine cylinder and their theo-
60
40
20
0
b.m.e.p. : 1.40 bar 2.57 bar 5.37 bar
Fig. 6. Emitted total unburned hydrocarbons (HC), at the three loads, for the neat
diesel fuel and the 8%, 16% and 24% butanol blends.
retical study is still at its infancy. The arguments given, for
example, in Refs. [2,32,33,48] for the observed increase of HC emis-
sions with ethanol–diesel fuel blends may be well applicable for
the butanol–diesel fuel blends too. These may include, slower
evaporation and so slower and poorer fuel–air mixing due to the
higher heat of evaporation of the butanol blends, increased spray
penetration causing unwanted fuel impingement on the chamber
walls (and so flame quenching) and cushioning in the ring land
areas, and increase with butanol of the so called ‘lean outer flame
zone’ where flame is unable to exist.
Fig. 7 shows the brake specific fuel consumption (b.s.f.c.) for the
neat diesel fuel and the various percentages of the butanol in its
blends with diesel fuel. The fuel blend mass flow rate is calculated
from the respective measured volume flow rate value and the
 D.C. Rakopoulos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1989–1997 1995

600 400
Diesel Diesel
8% Butanol 8% Butanol
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (g/kWh)

500 16% Butanol 16% Butanol

Exhaust Gas Temperature (0C)

24% Butanol 300 24% Butanol

400

300 200

200

100

100

0 0
b.m.e.p. : 1.40 bar 2.57 bar 5.37 bar b.m.e.p. : 1.40 bar 2.57 bar 5.37 bar

Fig. 7. Brake specific fuel consumption, at the three loads, for the neat diesel fuel Fig. 9. Exhaust gas temperature, at the three loads, for the neat diesel fuel and the
and the 8%, 16% and 24% butanol blends. 8%, 16% and 24% butanol blends.

tion and the lower calorific value of the fuel (cf. Eqs. (3) and (4)).
0.4
Diesel Given the above-mentioned close interrelation between brake
thermal efficiency and specific fuel consumption, the results of this
8% Butanol
figure can be explained. It is observed that for all the butanol–die-
16% Butanol sel fuel blends, the brake thermal efficiency is slightly higher than
24% Butanol that for the corresponding neat diesel fuel case, with the increase
Brake Thermal Efficiency (-)

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
b.m.e.p. : 1.40 bar 2.57 bar
Fig. 8. Brake thermal efficiency, at the three loads, for the neat diesel fuel and the
8%, 16% and 24% butanol blends.
blend density. Since the comparison is effected at the same load
(b.m.e.p.) and speed, which is translated into the same engine
power (cf. Eqs. (1) and (2)), the brake specific fuel consumption
values are then effectively directly proportional to the fuel mass
flow rate values (cf. Eq. (3)). It is observed that for all the buta-
nol–diesel fuel blends, the specific fuel consumption is a little high-
er than the corresponding diesel fuel case, with the increase being
higher the higher the percentage of butanol in the blend. This is the
expected behavior due to the lower calorific value of the butanol
compared to that for the neat diesel fuel, given that the comparison
is effected at the same load.
Fig. 8 shows the brake thermal efficiency (b.t.e.) for the neat die-
sel fuel and the various percentages of the butanol in its blends
with diesel fuel. It is to be noted that the brake thermal efficiency
is simply the inverse of the product of the specific fuel consump-
being higher the higher the percentage of butanol in the blend. This
means that the increase of brake specific fuel consumption for the
butanol–diesel fuel blends is lower than the corresponding de-
crease of the lower calorific value of the blends. This can be attrib-
uted to the higher premixed combustion part possessed by the
butanol blends because of the lower cetane number of butanol,
leading to higher percentage of ‘constant volume’ combustion,
and to the lower heat losses (due to the lower average cylinder
gas temperatures) and to ‘leaner’ combustion [48].
Lastly, Fig. 9 shows the exhaust gas temperature for the neat
diesel fuel and the various percentages of the butanol in its blends
with diesel fuel. It is observed that for all the butanol–diesel fuel
blends, the temperature is slightly lower than that for the corre-
sponding neat diesel fuel case, with this decrease being higher
5.37 bar
the higher the percentage of butanol in the blend. This is in accor-
dance with the corresponding trend of slightly higher thermal effi-
ciency, as justified above, by denoting a better expansion process;
to this side may also be corroborating the lower calorific value and
the higher latent heat of evaporation (and so lower produced tem-
peratures) of the butanol blends against those for the diesel fuel.
5. Conclusions
An extended experimental investigation was conducted to
evaluate and compare the use of n-butanol as supplement to the
conventional diesel fuel at blending ratios of 8/92, 16/84 and 24/
76 (by volume) in a high-speed, direct injection, naturally aspi-
rated diesel engine located at the authors’ laboratory. The series
of tests were conducted using each of the above fuel blends, with
the engine working at a speed of 2000 rpm and at three loads
(low, medium and high).
In each test, exhaust smokiness and exhaust regulated gas
emissions such as nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and total
unburned hydrocarbons were measured. Brake specific fuel
1996 D.C. Rakopoulos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1989–1997
consumption and thermal efficiency are computed from the mea-
sured fuel volumetric flow rate, and densities and calorific values.
The differences in the measured performance and exhaust emis-
sion parameters from the baseline operation of the engine, i.e.
when working with neat diesel fuel, were determined and com-
pared. The differing physical and chemical properties of the buta-
nol against those for the diesel fuel are used to aid the correct
interpretation of the observed engine behavior.
The smoke density was significantly reduced with the use of the
butanol–diesel fuel blends with respect to those of the neat diesel
fuel, with this reduction being higher the higher the percentage of
butanol in the blend.
The NOx emissions were slightly reduced with the use of the
butanol–diesel fuel blends with respect to those of the neat diesel
fuel, with this reduction being higher the higher the percentage of
butanol in the blend.
The CO emissions were reduced with the use of the butanol–
diesel fuel blends with respect to those of the neat diesel fuel, with
this reduction being higher the higher the percentage of butanol in
the blend.
On the contrary, the unburned hydrocarbons (HC) emissions
were increased with the use of the butanol–diesel fuel blends with
respect to those of the neat diesel fuel, with this increase being
higher the higher the percentage of butanol in the blend.
Concerning the engine performance with the butanol–diesel
fuel blends against the neat diesel fuel case, with increasing per-
centage of butanol in the blends, a little higher specific fuel con-
sumption was observed with corresponding slight increase of
brake thermal efficiency and little lower exhaust gas temperatures.
A general practical conclusion is that this next generation chal-
lenging fuel, n-butanol, can be used safely and advantageously up
to high blending ratios with the diesel fuel in the diesel engine,
both from the viewpoints of thermal efficiency and exhaust emis-
sions, given also its relatively high cetane number and high solubil-
ity in the diesel fuel requiring no cetane enhancing additive or
solubilizer as it happens normally with the corresponding etha-
nol–diesel fuel blends. Research is ongoing by the present authors
with butanol–diesel fuel blends on other types of diesel engines to
further prove its merits, with the results to be reported in a future
communication.
References
[1] Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG. Diesel engine transient operation – principles
of operation and simulation analysis. London: Springer; 2009.
[2] Stone R. Introduction to internal combustion engines.
ed. London: Macmillan; 1999.
[3] Rakopoulos CD, Michos CN, Giakoumis EG. Studying the effects of hydrogen
addition on the second-law balance of a biogas fuelled spark ignition engine by
use of a quasi-dimensional, multi-zone combustion model. Proc Inst Mech
Engrs, Part D, J Autom Eng 2008;222:2065–84.
[4] Papagiannakis RG, Rakopoulos CD, Hountalas DT, Giakoumis EG. Study of the
performance and exhaust emissions of a spark-ignited engine operating on
syngas fuel. Int J Altern Propul 2007;1:190–215.
[5] Rakopoulos CD, Kyritsis DC. Comparative second-law analysis of internal
combustion engine operation for methane, methanol and dodecane fuels.
Energy 2001;26:705–22.
[6] Rakopoulos CD, Kyritsis DC. Hydrogen enrichment effects on the second law
analysis of natural and landfill gas combustion in engine cylinders. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2006;31:1384–93.
[7] Miyamoto N, Ogawa H, Nabi MN. Approaches to extremely low emissions and
efficient diesel combustion with oxygenated fuels. Int J Engine Res
2000;1:71–85.
[8] Rakopoulos CD, Hountalas DT, Zannis TC, Levendis YA. Operational and
environmental evaluation of diesel engines burning oxygen-enriched intake
air or oxygen-enriched fuels: a review. Trans SAE, J Fuels Lubr
2004;113:1723–43 [SAE paper no. 2004-01-2924].
[9] Rodriguez-Fernandez J, Tsolakis A, Cracknell RF, Clark RH. Combining GTL fuel,
reformed EGR and HC-SCR aftertreatment system to reduce diesel NOx
emissions: a statistical approach. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:2789–99.
[10] Hansen AC, Kyritsis DC, Lee CF. Characteristics of biofuels and renewable fuel
standards. In: Vertes AA, Blaschek HP, Yukawa H, Qureshi N, editors. Biomass
to biofuels – strategies for global industries. New York: John Wiley; 2009.
[11] Rickeard DJ, Thompson ND. A review of the potential for bio-fuels as
transportation fuels. SAE Paper no. 932778; 1993.
[12] Hansen AC, Zhang Q, Lyne PWL. Ethanol–diesel fuel blends – a review.
Bioresour Technol 2005;96:277–85.
[13] Rogers Z, Kelly TG, Rogers DS, Carter CR. Alternative fuels: are they achievable?
Int J Logist: Res Appl 2007;10:269–82.
[14] Koerbitz W. Biodiesel production in Europe and North America, an
encouraging prospect. Renew Energy 1999;16:1078–83.
[15] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Rakopoulos DC, Hountalas DT, Giakoumis
EG. Comparative performance and emissions study of a direct injection diesel
engine using blends of diesel fuel with vegetable oils or bio-diesels of various
origins. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47:3272–87.
[16] Graboski MS, McCormick RL. Combustion of fat and vegetable oil derived fuels
in diesel engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1998;24:125–64.
[17] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Rakopoulos DC, Kakaras EC, Pariotis EG.
Characteristics of the performance and emissions of a HSDI diesel engine
running with cottonseed oil or its methyl ester and their blends with diesel
fuel. Int J Vehicle Des 2007;45:200–21.
[18] Rakopoulos CD, Rakopoulos DC, Hountalas DT, Giakoumis EG, Andritsakis EC.
Performance and emissions of bus engine using blends of diesel fuel with bio-
diesel of sunflower or cottonseed oils derived from Greek feedstock. Fuel
2008;87:147–58.
[19] Ozsezen AN, Canakci M, Sayin C. Effects of biodiesel from used frying palm oil
on the exhaust emissions of an indirect injection (IDI) diesel engine. Energy
Fuels 2008;22:2796–804.
[20] Benjumea P, Agudelo J, Agudelo A. Effect of altitude and palm oil biodiesel
fuelling on the performance and combustion characteristics of a HSDI diesel
engine. Fuel 2009;88:725–31.
[21] Ecklund EE, Bechtold RL, Timbario TJ, McCallum PW. State-of-the-art report on
the use of alcohols in diesel engines. SAE Paper no. 840118; 1984.
[22] Corkwell KC, Jackson MM, Daly DT. Review of exhaust emissions of
compression ignition engines operating on E Diesel fuel blends. SAE paper
no. 2003-01-3283; 2003.
[23] Eseji T, Qureshi N, Blaschek HP. Production of acetone–butanol–ethanol (ABE)
in a continuous flow bioreactor using degermed corn and Clostridium
beijernickii. Process Biochem 2007;42:34–9.
[24] Likos B, Callahan TJ, Moses CA. Performance and emissions of ethanol and
ethanol–diesel blends in direct-injected and pre-chamber diesel engines. SAE
paper no. 821039; 1982.
[25] Shropshire GJ, Goering CE. Ethanol injection into a diesel engine. Trans ASAE
1982;25(3):570–5.
[26] Hayes TK, Savage LD, White RA, Sorenson SC. The effect of fumigation of
different ethanol proofs on a turbocharged diesel engine. SAE paper no.
880497; 1988.
[27] Hansen AC, Taylor AB, Lyne PWL, Meiring P. Heat release in the compression–
ignition combustion of ethanol. Trans ASAE 1989;32(5):1507–11.
[28] Noguchi N, Terao H, Sakata C. Performance improvement by control of flow
rates and diesel injection timing on dual-fuel engine with ethanol. Bioresour
Technol 1996;56:35–9.
[29] Ajav EA, Singh B, Bhattacharya TK. Experimental study of some performance
parameters of a constant speed stationary diesel engine using ethanol–diesel
blends as fuel. Biomass Bioenergy 1999;17:357–65.
[30] Xingcai L, Zhen H, Wugao Z, Degang L. The influence of ethanol additives on
the performance and combustion characteristics of diesel engines. Combust
Sci Technol 2004;176:1309–29.
[31] Chen H, Shuai S, Wang J. Study on combustion characteristics and PM emission
of diesel engines using ester–ethanol–diesel blended fuels. Proc Combust Inst
2007;31:2981–9.
[32] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Rakopoulos DC, Hountalas DT, Andritsakis
3rd
EC. Study of the performance and emissions of a high-speed direct injection
diesel engine operating on ethanol–diesel fuel blends. Int J Altern Propul
2007;1:309–24.
[33] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Kakaras EC, Giakoumis EG. Effects of
ethanol–diesel fuel blends on the performance and exhaust emissions
of heavy duty DI diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage
2008;49:3155–62.
[34] Wrage KW, Goering CE. Technical feasibility of diesohol. Trans ASAE
1980;23(6):1338–43.
[35] Li D, Zhen H, Xingcai L, Wugao Z, Jianguang Y. Physico-chemical properties of
ethanol–diesel blend fuel and its effect on performance and emissions of diesel
engines. Renew Energy 2005;30:67–76.
[36] Simonsen H, Chomiak J. Testing and evaluation of ignition improvers for
ethanol in a DI diesel engine. SAE paper no. 952512; 1995.
[37] Satge de Caro P, Mouloungui Z, Vaitilingom G, Berge JC. Interest of combining
an additive with diesel–ethanol blends for use in diesel engines. Fuel
2001;80:565–74.
[38] Chotwichien A, Luengnaruemitchai A, Jai-In S. Utilization of palm oil alkyl
esters as an additive in ethanol–diesel and butanol–diesel blends. Fuel
2009;88:1618–24.
[39] Johnson DT, Taconi KA. The glycerin glut: options for the value-added
conversion of crude glycerol resulting from biodiesel production. AIChE,
Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2007;26:338–48.
[40] Taconi KA, Venkataramanan KP, Johnson DT. Growth and solvent production
by Clostridium pasteurianum (ATCC, 6013) utilizing biodiesel-derived crude
glycerol as the sole carbon source. AIChE, Environ Prog Sustain Energy
2009;28:100–10.
 D.C. Rakopoulos et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1989–1997
[41] Rakopoulos CD, Taklis GN, Tzanos EI. Analysis of combustion chamber
insulation effects on the performance and exhaust emissions of a DI diesel
engine using a multi-zone model. Heat Recov Syst CHP 1995;15:691–706.
[42] Rakopoulos CD, Hountalas DT. Development and validation of a 3-D multi-
zone combustion model for the prediction of DI diesel engines performance
and pollutants emissions. Trans SAE, J Engines 1998;107:1413–29 [SAE paper
no. 981021].
[43] Rakopoulos CD, Rakopoulos DC, Kyritsis DC. Development and validation of a
comprehensive two-zone model for combustion and emissions formation in a
DI diesel engine. Energy Res 2003;27:1221–49.
[44] Rakopoulos CD, Rakopoulos DC, Giakoumis EG, Kyritsis DC. Validation and
sensitivity analysis of a two-zone diesel engine model for combustion and
emissions prediction. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:1471–95.
[45] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Rakopoulos DC, Hountalas DT. Multi-zone
modeling of combustion and emissions formation in DI diesel engine
operating on ethanol–diesel fuel blends. Energy Convers Manage
2008;49:625–43.
[46] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Rakopoulos DC. Development and
application of a multi-zone model for combustion and pollutants formation
in a direct injection diesel engine running with vegetable oil or its bio-diesel.
Energy Convers Manage 2007;48:1881–901.
[47] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Rakopoulos DC. Multi-zone modeling of
diesel engine fuel spray development with vegetable oil, bio-diesel or diesel
fuels. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47:1550–73.
1997
[48] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Rakopoulos DC. Experimental heat release
analysis and emissions of a HSDI diesel engine fueled with ethanol–diesel fuel
blends. Energy 2007;32:1791–808.
[49] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG, Papagiannakis RG, Kyritsis DC.
Experimental–stochastic investigation of the combustion cyclic variability in
HSDI diesel engine using ethanol–diesel fuel blends. Fuel 2008;87:1478–91.
[50] Kouremenos DA, Rakopoulos CD, Kotsos KG. A stochastic–experimental
investigation of the cyclic pressure variation in a DI single-cylinder diesel
engine. Energy Res 1992;16:865–77.
[51] Saeed MN, Henein N. Combustion phenomena of alcohols in C.I. engines. Trans
ASME, J Eng Gas Turbines Power 1989;111:439–44.
[52] Miers SA, Carlson RW, McConnell SS, Ng HK, Wallner T, Esper JL. Drive cycle
analysis of butanol/diesel blends in a light-duty vehicle. SAE paper no. 2008-
01-2381; 2008.
[53] Yoshimoto Y, Onodera M, Tamaki H. Performance and emission characteristics
of diesel engines fueled by vegetable oils. SAE paper no. 2001-01-1807/4227;
2001.
[54] Yoshimoto Y, Onodera M. Performance of a diesel engine fueled by rapeseed oil
blended with oxygenated organic compounds. SAE paper no. 2002-01-2854;
2002.
[55] Huang J, Wang Y, Li S, Roskilly AP, Yu H, Li H. Experimental investigation on
the performance and emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with ethanol–diesel
blends. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:2484–90.