Applied Thermal Engineering 59 (2013) 550e558

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Effective utilisation of butanol along with gasoline in a spark ignition

engine through a dual injection system
T. Venugopal*, A. Ramesh
IC Engines Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, Tamilnadu 600 036, India

h i g h l i g h t s

The new dual injection system can easily vary the ratio of alcohol and gasoline.

Use of higher amount of n-butanol even at part loads is possible with new system.

Vaporization improved by proper targeting of fuel sprays and HC emissions reduced.

Neat n-butanol reduced the tendency to knock at full load by charge cooling.

Engine torque can be improved at full load with n-butanol as compared to gasoline.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 12 April 2013
Accepted 13 June 2013
Available online 27 June 2013

In spark ignition engines fuelled by alcohol gasoline blends, the proportion of the two fuels has to be
varied according to the operating condition. Further high amounts of alcohol cannot be blended with
gasoline because the two phases can separate under certain conditions. In this work a dual injection
system, wherein n-butanol and gasoline can be injected separately in any ratio has been employed in a
spark ignition engine. The objective is to determine the most suitable amounts of n-butanol and gasoline
to be used at different operating conditions of a four stroke spark ignition engine when these fuels are
simultaneously injected into the intake manifold using this dual injection system. Experiments are
conducted at different fuel ratios and throttle positions at an equivalence ratio of 1. The system results in
good vaporization of the fuels even at low load conditions because the fuel jets are aligned to hit different
portions of the intake valve. Results indicate that with proper selection of the fuel ratio signicant
reduction in HC emissions can be achieved as compared to operation on neat gasoline. Up to 60% of nbutanol could be used at 15% throttle while up to 80% could be used at 25% throttle. These proportions
are higher than what have been achieved by pre-blending these fuels. The possibility of using high
amounts of n-butanol reduced the tendency to knock. Hence, with the dual injection system n-butanol
can be effectively used along with gasoline.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Dual injection
Phase separation
Alcohols
n-Butanol
Fuel ratio and emissions

1. Introduction
The use of alcohols as fuels has gained importance due to their
low global warming potential, good combustion characteristics and
availability. In general, alcohols are good spark ignition (SI) engine
fuels on account of their high octane number. Alcohols have been
used as the sole fuel and also in the blended form with gasoline in SI
engines. Due to their limited availability in many countries alcohols
cannot be used to completely replace gasoline. Further, the use of
100% alcohol will need changes in engine parameters and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 9865705078.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]
(T. Venugopal).
1359-4311/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.06.026

materials. It is also to be noted that use of neat alcohols may not

ensure proper combustion at certain operating conditions. These
factors have led to the use of alcohols along with gasoline in the
blended form. There are also problems associated with the use of
alcohols in engines like changes in performance with the amount of
alcohol used along with gasoline in the blend, difculty in cold
starting due to their high latent heat, phase separation of the blend
even in the presence of small amounts of moisture and corrosiveness [1e4]. While using pre blended alcohol and gasoline it will not
be feasible to vary the proportions of these two fuels based on the
operating conditions which can vary rapidly in an automotive engine. Hence, methods other than blending have to be devised to
overcome these problems and to achieve good performance.
Amongst alcohols, butanol is being evaluated for its suitability
to be used in spark ignition (SI) engines as its properties are close

T. Venugopal, A. Ramesh / Applied Thermal Engineering 59 (2013) 550e558

Nomenclature and units

CA
CO
COV
HC
HRR
IMEP
IVO
MBT
NO
SI
TP
WOT
phi

crank angle ( )
carbon monoxide (% vol)
co-efcient of variance (%)
hydrocarbon (ppmv)
heat release rates (J/ CA)
indicated mean effective pressure (bar)
inlet valve opens (IVO)
minimum advance for best torque ( CA before TDC)
nitric oxides (ppmv)
spark ignition
throttle position
wide open throttle
equivalence ratio

Notation
B
IB
E
M

for fuels
n-butanol
iso-butanol
ethanol
methanol

to those of gasoline. High energy content, high ame velocity,

relatively low latent heat of evaporation and low corrosiveness are
the major advantages of n-butanol [1,2,5e8]. Conventional
fermentation processes can be used to produce n-butanol. Metabolic reaction of bacteria or yeast in the absence of oxygen can
produce n-butanol. Starch and glucose are converted into alcohols
and other by-products like carbon-di-oxide, hydrogen and acids
[2,9,10]. The properties of gasoline, n-butanol and ethanol are
shown in Table 1. The octane number of n-butanol is close to the
value of gasoline. Its higher latent heat of evaporation is benecial
in reducing oxides of nitrogen (NOx) as the temperature of the
charge will be low. The fuel bound oxygen in n-butanol will reduce
the hydro carbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) emission levels
[1,5,8]. However, not much work on the use of n-butanol as an
engine fuel has been reported in literature. Hence, in this work nbutanol was chosen as the fuel to be used in different proportions
with gasoline.
An electronically controlled dual injection system that was
developed by the authors has been used in this work to simultaneously inject alcohol and gasoline into the intake port of a SI

Table 1
Properties of gasoline, ethanol and n-butanol [2,3,5&6].
Property

Gasoline

Ethanol

n-Butanol

Chemical formula
Composition (C, H, O) (mass %)
Lower heating value (MJ/kg)
Density (kg/m3)
Octane number ((R M)/2)
Boiling temperature ( C)
Latent heat of vaporization
(25  C) (kJ/kg)
Self-ignition temperature ( C)
Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio
Laminar ame speed (cm/s)
Mixture caloric value (MJ/m3)
Ignition limits in air (vol %)
Lower limit
Upper limit
Solubility in water at 20  C
(ml/100 ml H2O)

C4eC12
86, 14, 0
42.7
715e765
90
25e215
380e500

C2H5OH
52, 13, 35
26.8
790
100
78
904

C4H9OH
65, 13.5, 21.5
33.1
810
87
118
716

z300
14.7
z52
3.75

420
9.0
63
3.85

343
11.2
57
3.82

0.6
8
<0.1

3.5
15
Fully miscible

1.4
11.2
7.7

551

engine. The advantage is that the amounts of alcohol and gasoline

can be independently varied based on the operating condition for
best performance and/or low emission levels. Further, there is no
problem of phase separation since the two fuels are not mixed
prior to injection. The aim of this work is to experimentally
determine the most suitable amounts of n-butanol and gasoline to
be used with the dual injection system in a SI engine at different
operating conditions based on emissions. This will enable effective
utilisation of n-butanol along with gasoline.
2. Background
Experiments on a multi-cylinder SI engine indicated that
blending n-butanol by up to 40% by volume with gasoline (B40)
resulted only in a small increase in HC and CO emissions as
compared to gasoline [5]. Similar results have also been reported
in other literature on alcohol gasoline blends [7,11,12]. However,
higher level blends like B60 and B80 produced signicantly
higher HC and CO emissions than with neat gasoline due to
improper vaporization on account of the high latent heat of nbutanol [5]. Neat n- butanol also produces high HC emissions [12].
On the other hand, enhanced combustion due to the fuel bound
oxygen reduced CO emission when 20% by volume of ethanol or
methanol or n-butanol were used along with gasoline (E20, M20
and B20) in a carburetted engine at fuel rich conditions. HC
emission was increased and this is reported to be due to the increase in amount of fuel vapour in the quench layer and crevice
volume of the combustion chamber with the alcohol blends.
Butanol gasoline blends showed lower HC levels than ethanol
gasoline blends [3].
It is also reported that the amount of butanol in the blend inuences NO emission. Use of more than 80% n-butanol with gasoline is reported to reduce NOx emission signicantly [5]. High
ame velocity of alcohols reduces the residence time for the formation of NOx and also the high latent heat of evaporation of alcohols reduces the in-cylinder charge temperature. These are the
main reasons for low NO emission with the use of high amount of
alcohols with gasoline. NOx emission reduced when methanol and
butanol blends with gasoline were used [13,14,12]. The peak
combustion temperature encountered with alcohols is also low,
which is one of the reasons for low NO emission with butanol
blends [12]. The high ame velocity of n-butanol resulted in higher
in-cylinder peak pressures than with gasoline and no major difference in cycle by cycle variations and combustion duration were
observed [1,8].
Test results for 0, 5, 10, 20 and 30% by volume of ethanol in
gasoline (E0, E05, E10, E20, and E30) showed that at 20% throttle
and low speeds E05 gave the maximum torque and at high speeds
E30 was the best. At 40% and 60% throttles, E20 and E30 blends
were observed to be the best in terms of efciency and torque. At
high loads clear trends were not seen [15]. It is reported that a 35%
butanol-gasoline blend improves the torque at low and medium
speeds and maintains the same torque at high speeds above
7000 rpm, at full throttle as compared to gasoline in a carburetted
engine [11]. A drop in thermal efciency was observed with neat
butanol as compared to gasoline due to its high latent heat of
evaporation which affected vaporization of the fuel. A 12% drop
in thermal efciency was found with neat iso-butanol at part
throttle [16].
Most alcohol gasoline blends tend to separate in the presence of
water and this can be controlled by the use of additives [17]. Blends
of ethanol and gasoline can be stabilized by using small amounts of
n-butanol. A circulating pump inside the fuel tank can also be used
to agitate the blends so that phase separation can be avoided by
continuous mixing [18]. Introducing the fuels at the point of

552

T. Venugopal, A. Ramesh / Applied Thermal Engineering 59 (2013) 550e558

consumption or online blending can also be used to avoid phase

separation. An online fuel blending system was developed by using
separate tanks for ethanol and gasoline and a stepper motor based
control valve with a mixing chamber. Performance and emission
characteristics with E70 (70% ethanol in gasoline) were observed
to be better than gasoline and E10 [19]. Online mixing of the two
fuels in a carburettor is also one solution. Rapid changes in the
equivalence ratio are difcult in a carburettor during transient
conditions [20].
There was no major change torque in the range of compression
ratios between 8 and 11:1 with ethanol blends namely, E20, E40
and E60 at full throttle; whereas torque was increased with amount
of ethanol in the blend at higher compression ratios of 12 and 13:1.
Highest torque was observed with E60 at the compression ratio of
13:1 at wide open throttle due to the high antiknock quality of
ethanol [21]. The torque and exhaust gas temperature were reported to be similar among all the three isomers of butanol.
However, changes in emission characteristics were found [22].
On the whole it is seen that pre-blended alcohol-gasoline fuels
cannot offer the best performance at all operating conditions. Thus
systems which can vary the ratio of the fuels online are required.
The present work evaluates the performance, emissions and combustion characteristics of an automotive SI engine fuelled with

varying amounts of butanol and gasoline using a dual injection

system capable of online variations in fuel ratio.
3. Experimental setup
A four stroke, single cylinder, air cooled automotive engine with
a compression ratio- 9.4:1, displacement volume of 200cc and a
rated power of 6.5 kW @ 5000 rpm was used for this study. Torque
was applied and measured by using an eddy current dynamo-meter
with closed loop control of speed. The air ow rate was measured
by using a roots type airow meter (DRESSER Inc. USA). A plenum
was used to dampen the uctuations in the ow rate at the air ow
meter. This plenum was located between the engines air lter and
the air ow meter as seen in Fig. 1. NO emissions were measured by
a chemiluminescence analyser (Rosemount, USA). HC and CO
emission measurements were taken using a Non-Dispersive InfraRed (NDIR) analyser (Horiba, Japan). Water vapour in the exhaust
gas was condensed before emission measurements. Fuel ow rates
were measured by precision weighing balances on the mass basis.
The temperature of the fuels was maintained at a constant value by
using small heat exchangers. A ush mounted Piezo-electric pressure transducer (Kistler 6052C, Switzerland) and an angle encoder
(Kubler, Germany) with special data acquisition software

Fig. 1. Schematic of experimental set up.

T. Venugopal, A. Ramesh / Applied Thermal Engineering 59 (2013) 550e558

developed in-house were used to capture cylinder pressure data on

the angle basis along with a (National Instruments, USA) data
acquisition system.
Cylinder pressure data were averaged for hundred cycles and
used for the calculation of heat release parameters based on the
rst law of thermodynamics during closed valve period [23]. The
Hohenbergs correlation was used to calculate heat transfer to the
walls of the combustion chamber for the estimation of heat release
rates [24]. The mean in-cylinder gas temperature was calculated by
the ideal gas law. Initially, the mean cylinder charge temperature at
the start of compression was calculated based on adiabatic mixing
of the trapped residual gases at exhaust gas temperature and
inducted fresh charge of air and fuel. Stoichiometry was used to
calculate the composition of the burned products for the calculation of properties [25]. A real time engine controller that can be
used for any type of engine (Universal Engine Controller - UEC) that
was developed in the laboratory using a National Instruments FPGA
(Field Programmable Gate Array) hardware and software written in
Labview was used to control the ignition timing, injection quantity
(pulse width) of the injectors and also the injection timing. Typical
values of uncertainties calculated with 95% condence level for
brake thermal efciency, HC, CO and NO emissions are  0.6%,
12 ppmv, 0.04% vol and 50 ppmv respectively [26].
The schematic layout of the experimental set up is shown in
Fig. 1.Two solenoid based fuel injectors were located on a newly
designed manifold in such a way that sprays do not hit the walls of
the manifold but impinge on the back of the intake valve for good
vaporisation [27,28] as shown in Fig. 2. With two injectors, almost
the entire surface of the valve is effectively utilized for vaporization
of the fuel.

553

operating conditions. Experiments were conducted at 15, 25, 35

and 100% throttle positions which correspond to 45, 60, 75 and 85%
volumetric efciencies respectively. The speed of the engine was
kept at a constant value of 3000 rpm. The closed valve injection
strategy was followed as this has been reported to reduce HC
emissions [27,28]. The injection timing of both the fuels was kept
constant and the entire injection process occurred when the intake
valve was closed. The pulse widths of the signals supplied to the
two injectors located on the intake port were varied online by the
engine controller to obtain any fuel ratio that was required and also
to maintain the equivalence ratio at 1.
It may be noted that the injectors need to supply a wide range of
ow rates in the case of simultaneous injection, because of variations in the load (throttle) and also in the fuel ratio. Due to this large
range of ow rates, it was found that even with the smallest of the
available injectors a reduction in the injection pressure was needed
for proper functioning of the injectors. This variation in injection
pressure was needed when the throttle position was 25% or lower
while the fuel ratio was lower than 20% or greater than 80%. This
ensured that the widths of the electrical pulses applied on the injectors were always greater than 1.5 ms for their stable operation.
Low pulse widths lead to irregular operation of fuel injectors. Since
injection was done in the closed valve period as with practical
systems, both the fuels impinged on the back of the intake valve
and hence injection pressure is not expected to inuence performance signicantly. The temperature of the fuel was maintained
at a constant value (between 29  1  C) by using small heat
exchangers.

5. Results and discussion

4. Experimental procedure
Experiments were conducted by varying the proportions of nbutanol and gasoline from 0 to 100% by mass (0, 20, 40, 60, 80,
100%) using the dual injection system described earlier. The
equivalence ratio (phi) was kept at 1 (stoichiometric) and the spark
timing was set at the minimum advance for best torque (MBT) at all

In the following graphs and discussions B60S indicates that the

ratio of butanol is 60% by mass of the total mass of gasoline and
butanol. The letter S indicates simultaneous injection in order to
differentiate from injection of conventional pre-blended fuel using
a single injector. The symbol phi indicates the overall equivalence
ratio based on both fuels injected. The term fuel ratio indicated in

Fig. 2. Location of the injectors.

554

T. Venugopal, A. Ramesh / Applied Thermal Engineering 59 (2013) 550e558

Fig. 3. Variation of heating value and fuel energy supply vs. fuel ratio.

some graphs is the mass percentage of butanol in the total amount

of fuel (n-butanol and gasoline) that is injected.
The caloric values per unit mass of various mixtures of nbutanol and gasoline are shown in Fig. 3. As the fuel ratio increases,
the contribution of gasoline to the caloric value of the mixture
reduces and that of n-butanol increases. The caloric value of the
mixture decreases with increasing fuel ratio. It is due to the inferior
heating value of n-butanol as compared to gasoline. At a fuel ratio
of approximately 60%, equal energies are contributed by both fuels.
The stoichiometric air fuel ratio decreases from 14.7:1 to 11.2:1
when the fuel ratio increases from 0 to 100%. This is because the
stoichiometric air fuel ratio for n-butanol (11.2:1) is lower than that
of gasoline (14.7:1) due to the presence of oxygen in the molecule of
the former fuel. At a given equivalence ratio, the use of higher
amounts of n-butanol due to its low air requirements compensates
partially for its inferior heating value. The heating value of nbutanol is 33.1 MJ/kg which is 22.5% lower than the heating value of
gasoline (42.7 MJ/kg). The total energy supplied by both the fuels
(fuel mixture) with respect to fuel ratio of n-butanol and gasoline is
shown in Fig. 3 for 1 kg of air and the corresponding chemically
correct quantity of fuel. It is clear from Fig. 3 that when the fuel
ratio increases, the amount of heat supplied by the fuel mixture
increases due to increase in the total mass of fuel mixture supplied
per kg of air. This is because of the lower stoichiometric air
requirement of n-butanol as compared to gasoline. A decrease in
volumetric efciency (based on air inducted by the engine) with
fuel ratio was observed at 100% throttle as shown in Fig. 4. Higher
mass ie higher number of moles of n-butanol are used as compared
to gasoline for the same equivalence ratio. This will mean that
during the vaporization of the fuel more air will be displaced by nbutanol as compared to gasoline which lowers the volumetric efciency. Such a drop in volumetric efciency has also been reported
in the case of blends of 85% ethanol and gasoline blends [29]. We
see in Fig. 4 that the torque increased with fuel ratio even though
the volumetric efciency decreased by about 2.5%. This is because
the heat added by the fuel per unit mass of air increases with fuel
ratio at constant equivalence ratio.
The variation of brake thermal efciency with fuel ratio is
shown in Fig. 5. No major change in efciency was observed at 100%
throttle. Even though torque was increased with fuel ratio at 100%
throttle, the heat added by the fuel per unit mass of air was also
increased. This is the reason for similar brake thermal efciencies at

Fig. 4. Variation of engine torque and volumetric efciency vs. fuel ratio (100%
Throttle).

100% throttle with increasing torque, when the fuel ratio increased.
The thermal efciency of the engine did not change until a fuel ratio
of 60% ie B60S at 15% throttle. Use of higher amounts of n-butanol
(B80S and B100) reduced the efciency due to inferior fuel vaporization at the low torque or throttle conditions where the component temperatures are low. The efciency with B100 was around
1.5% and 1% lower than that with gasoline at 15% and 25% throttles
respectively. It should also be noted that a single injector was only
used for B100. In this case the fuel will hit only a part of the valve
and vaporization will not be as effective as when two injectors are
used. The temperatures of the engine components were also lower
at part throttle which also hindered vapourization of n-butanol.
This trend was conrmed by repeated experiments. At all other
throttle positions no major changes in efciency were observed
with different fuel ratios. Hence, it is better to use up to B60S at 15%
throttle and not to use B100 at 15 and 25% throttles to ensure good
performance. The best spark timings were generally more

Fig. 5. Variation of brake thermal efciency vs. fuel ratio.

T. Venugopal, A. Ramesh / Applied Thermal Engineering 59 (2013) 550e558

555

Fig. 8. In-cylinder pressure vs. crank angle (100% Throttle).

Fig. 6. Variation of spark timing vs. fuel ratio.

advanced when the fuel ratio was increased at 35% and 100%
throttle positions (Fig. 6). These spark timings were knock limited.
Use of more amount of n-butanol reduced the in-cylinder temperature which allowed the spark timings to be more advanced by
mitigating the knock. The higher ame velocity of n-butanol as
compared to gasoline also could be the reason for that. At the
throttle position of 15%, the ignition timing had to be retarded with
increase in the fuel ratio because of the reduction in temperature of
the charge when increasing amounts of n-butanol were used.
The heat release rates are also higher with B60S as compared to
gasoline as seen in Fig. 7 at 15% throttle. Higher heat release rates
with B60S are due to better utilization of valve heat by proper

targeting of the fuel sprays on the different portions of the intake

valve. A lower combustion duration was observed with B60S
(59 CA) as compared to gasoline (64 CA). The in-cylinder pressure
traces and heat release rate vs. crank angle are shown in Figs. 8 and
9. The peak cylinder pressure became higher when the fuel ratio was
increased at 100% throttle position. This is due to more advanced
knock limited spark timing with n-butanol. The heat release rates
were also higher and more advanced with increase in fuel ratio.
There was no major difference in 10e50% mass burn duration when
the fuel ratio was changed (maximum difference of 3 CA) at 35%
and 100% throttle position (Fig. 10). However, the crank angle at
which 50% burn duration occurs is found to be earlier with increased
fuel ratio due to advancement of the spark timing. Co-efcient of

Fig. 7. Heat release rate vs. crank angle (15% Throttle).

Fig. 9. Heat release rate vs. crank angle (100% Throttle).

556

T. Venugopal, A. Ramesh / Applied Thermal Engineering 59 (2013) 550e558

Fig. 10. 10e50% mass burn duration and CA@50% mass burn duration occurs vs. fuel
ratio.

Fig. 12. NO emission vs. fuel ratio.

variance (COV) of indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) was less

than 4% at all operating conditions. COV of peak pressure was between 6 and 10% at different fuel ratios. No major variation in 10e
90% mass burn duration (combustion duration) was observed with
changes in fuel ratio. Similar results were also reported in studies
using conventional pre-blended butanol and gasoline [5,8,13].
Hydrocarbon (HC) emissions were appreciably reduced when
the fuel ratio was increased, in general. It was reduced by around
15% with B60S at 15% throttle as compared to gasoline due to better
mixture preparation on account of effective utilization of the heat
in the valve. The two sprays in the case of simultaneous injection
fall on different regions of the intake valve and thus enable better
vaporization of the fuels. The fuel bound oxygen in n-butanol could
also be the reason for low HC emissions. Further, addition of

butanol at 15% throttle increased the HC emissions (Fig. 11). This is

attributed to lack of vaporization of n-butanol with B80S and B100
at 15% throttle where the engine component and cylinder gas
temperatures were low. This limit was extended to a fuel ratio of
80% ie B80S at 25% throttle. A 33% reduction in HC emissions with
B80S was observed at 25% throttle as compared to operation with
gasoline. In the case of higher throttles like 35 and 100%, increase in
the fuel ratio progressively lowered the HC level as seen in Fig. 11.
HC emissions were reduced by 27% and 41% at 35% and 100%
throttles respectively with B100 operation. Temperatures of the
engine components and the gas in the cylinder are high at high
throttles and they aid vaporization of the fuel. Low exhaust temperatures that were observed with B100 at part throttle will reduce
post oxidation and lead to higher tail pipe HC emissions [5,12,13].

Fig. 11. HC emission vs. fuel ratio.

Fig. 13. In-cylinder gas temperature vs. crank angle (35% Throttle).

T. Venugopal, A. Ramesh / Applied Thermal Engineering 59 (2013) 550e558

557

advanced knock limited spark timing that could be used as

compared to gasoline. The effect of charge cooling and higher ame
velocity of n-butanol result in more advanced spark timings.
Similar trends were observed at part throttle except for B100. Based
on the performance and emission characteristics using the simultaneous injection system, the most suitable amounts of n-butanol
to be injected for different throttle positions are xed in comparison to neat gasoline operation as shown in the Table 2.
In general, the performance and emission characteristics of
n-butanolegasoline mixture with equal energy supply (B60S)
produced same efciency and lower HC and NO emissions as
compared to gasoline.
6. Conclusions

Fig. 14. Cylinder peak pressure vs. fuel ratio.

Most of the earlier studies reported that the HC emissions were

increased when blends of more than 40% of n-butanol with gasoline by volume were used in SI engines [5,12,13]. However, the
present dual injection system has resulted in signicantly reduced
HC emissions due to improved fuel vaporization by effectively
utilizing the valve heat even with higher fuel ratios at part throttle.
No major changes in CO emissions were observed with different
fuel ratios due to stoichiometric operation.
In general, NO emission was reduced when the fuel ratio was
increased at high throttles like 35% and 100% as seen in Fig. 12. The
high latent heat of butanol is effective in reducing the temperature
of the charge (Charge cooling) and this leads to low NO emissions
[5,8]. Specically, at 35% throttle position, the NO level showed a
small rise beyond B80S. This was observed during repeated
experimentation. It may also be noted that even though the peak
in-cylinder temperature for gasoline (B0), B80S and B100 at 35%
throttle were almost similar as seen in Fig. 13, the NO levels were
different in all these three cases. The adiabatic ame temperature of
gasoline is higher than butanol. Hence, even though the mean gas
temperatures were almost similar between the different fuels, the
NOx emission was higher for gasoline. Low NO emissions were
observed with B100 at 15% and 25% throttles due to inferior combustion. Similar results were also observed in earlier studies conducted by the present authors with different injectors. Literature
indicates that NO emission reduces when using 40% of n-butanol by
volume or higher as compared to gasoline in the pre blended form
[5,12,13]. However, in this work with the use of two injectors
wherein the valve heat effectively vaporizes the fuel, there is a drop
in NO emission only at higher fuel ratios.
The cylinder peak pressures were increased, when the fuel ratio
was raised particularly at high throttles (Fig. 14). It is due to more

Table 2
Suitable amount of n-butanol for lowest emission.
Throttle Best fuel
Change in efciency HC emission (%)
(%)
ratio
in comparison to
decrease as
(% by mass) gasoline
compared to
gasoline

NO emission (%)
decrease as
compared to
gasoline

15
25
35
100

Similar
Similar
10%
7%

60
80
100
100

Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar

15%
33%
27%
41%

It is important to change the ratio of butanol to gasoline based

on the throttle position for obtaining low HC emissions. This
could be easily achieved with the present dual injection
system.

The maximum torque of the engine increased as the fuel ratio
of n-butanol was rised. With 100% butanol the torque increases
by 2% even though the volumetric efciency decreases by
about 2.5% at full throttle operation.

Without any drop in thermal efciency up to B60S could be
used at 15% throttle, B80S could be used at 25% throttle. At
higher throttle positions B100 is suitable. High amounts of
butanol than normally reported with blends could be used
since the dual injection system utilized valve heat effectively
for vaporization of the fuels.

The simultaneous injection system through the use of the proper
fuel ratio led to a signicant decrease in the HC levels. Reductions of 33%, 27% and 41% in HC emissions were observed
25%, 35% and 100% throttles respectively with the correct fuel
ratios.

There was a general decrease in NO emissions with high
butanol fuel ratios. No signicant change in CO emissions was
found with different fuel ratios, since stoichiometric conditions
were maintained during these experiments.

The knock limited spark timings were more advanced because
of the reduction in the charge temperature with butanol. This
enabled higher torques to be achieved. Higher ame speed and
more advanced knock limited timing produced higher peak
cylinder pressures when the butanol fuel ratio was increased.
On the whole the developed simultaneous injection system is an
effective way to utilize n-butanol or other alcohols along with
gasoline based on operating conditions. In situations where the
availability of alcohols is restricted they could be used with the dual
injection system only when high torque or high reductions in HC
emissions are needed during actual operation.
References
[1] T. Wallner, S. Miers, S. McConnell, A comparison of ethanol and butanol as
oxygena-tes using a direct injection spark-ignition engine, J. Eng. Gas. Turbines Power 131 (2009) 1e9.
[2] K. Owen, T. Coley, Automotive Fuels Handbook, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1990.
[3] R.W. Rice, A.K. Sanyal, A.C. Elrod, R.M. Clemson, Bata, exhaust gas emissions of
butanol, ethanol and methanol-gasoline blends, J. Eng. Gas. Turbines Power
113 (2010) 377e381.
[4] F.N. Alsfour, Butanol-a single cylinder engine study: availability analysis, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 17 (1997) 537e549.
[5] J. Dernotte, C. Mounaim-Rousselle, F. Halter, F. Seers, Evaluation of butanole
gasoline blends in a port fuel-injection spark-ignition engine, Oil Gas Sci.
Technol. 65 (2010) 345e351.
[6] X. Gu, Z. Huang, S. Wu, Q. Li, Laminar burning velocities and ame instabilities
of butanol isomerseair mixtures, Combust. Flame 157 (2010) 2318e2325.

558

T. Venugopal, A. Ramesh / Applied Thermal Engineering 59 (2013) 550e558

[7] G. Broustail, P. Seers, F. Halter, G. Morac, C. Mounaim-Rousselle, Experimental determination of laminar burning velocity for butanol and ethanol isooctane blends, Fuel 90 (2011) 1e6.
[8] S. Szwaja, J.D. Naber, Combustion of n-butanol in a spark-ignition IC engine,
Fuel 89 (2010) 1573e1582.
[9] Peter Durre, Fermentive production of butanol-the academic perspective,
Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 22 (2011) 331e336.
[10] Peter Durre, Fermentive production of butanol-the industrial perspective,
Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 22 (2011) 337e343.
[11] J. Yang, Y. Wang, R. Feng. The Performance Analysis of an Engine Fueled with
Butanol-Gasoline Blend, SAE Paper (2011), 2011-01-1191. http://dx.doi.org/
10.4271/2011-01-1191.
[12] X. Gu, Z. Huang, J. Cai, J. Gong, X. Wu, C. Lee, Emission characteristics of a
spark-ignition engine fuelled with gasoline-n-butanol blends in combination
with EGR, Fuel 93 (2011) 611e617.
[13] A. Yasar, Effects of alcohol-gasoline blends on exhaust and noise emissions in
small scaled generators, Metalurgija 49 (2010) 335e338.
[14] G. Broustail, F. Halter, P. Seers, G. Morac, R.C. Mounaim, Comparison of
regulated and non-regulated pollutants with iso-octane/butanol and isooctane/ethanol blends in a port-fuel injection spark-ignition engine, Fuel 94
(2011) 251e261.
[15] C.W. Wu, R.H. Chen, J.Y. Pu, T.H. Lin, The inuence of airefuel ratio on engine
performance and pollutant emission of an SI engine using ethanolegasolineblended fuels, Atmos. Environ. 38 (2004) 7093e7100.
[16] A. Irimescu, Performance and fuel conversion efciency of a spark ignition
engine fueled with iso-butanol, Appl. Energy 96 (2012) 477e483.
[17] Z. Mukov, M. Posp, S. Gustav, Volatility and phase stability of petrol blends
with ethanol, Fuel 88 (2009) 1351e1356.
[18] A. Abdulghani, Al-Farayedhi, A.M. Al-Dawood, P. Gandhidasan, Effects of
Blending Crude Ethanol with Unleaded Gasoline on exhaust emissions of SI Engine, SAE Paper (2000), 2000-01-2857. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2000-01-2857.

[19] A. Kumar, D.S. Khatri, M.K.G. Babu, An Investigation of Potential And Challenges With Higher Ethanol-Gasoline Blend On A Single Cylinder Spark Ignition Research Engine, SAE Paper (2009), 2009-01-0137. http://dx.doi.org/10.
4271/2009-01-0137.
[20] P. Jla-Zheng, Carbuetor on Gasoline Engine Fuel-Saving, SAE Paper (1989),
892043. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/892043.
lu, Comparative study of
[21] H. Serdar, S. Ycesu, A. Sozen, T. Topgl, E. Arcakliog
mathematical and experimental analysis of spark ignition engine performance
used ethanol-gasoline blend fuel, Appl. Therm Eng. 27 (2007) 358e368.
[22] C. Regalbuto, M. Pennisi, B. Wigg, D. Kyritsis, Experimental Investigation of
Butanol Isomer Combustion in Spark Ignition Engines, SAE Paper (2012), 201201-1271. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2012-01-1271.
[23] T.K. Hayes, L.D. Savage, S.C. Sorenson, Cylinder Pressure Data Acquisition and
Heat Release Analysis on a Personal Computer, SAE Paper (1986), No. 860029.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/860029.
[24] G.F. Hohenberg, Advanced Approaches for Heat Transfer Calculations, SAE
Paper (1979), 790825. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/790825.
[25] V. Ganesan, Computer Simulation of Spark-ignition Engine Processes, second
ed., Universities Press (India) Ltd, 1996.
[26] J.P. Holman, Experimental Methods for Engineers, seventh ed., The McGrawHill Companies, 2007, pp. 48e62.
[27] K.R. Lang, W.K. Cheng, Effects of Fuel Injection Strategy on HC Emissions In A
Port-Fuel-Injection Engine During Fast Idle, SAE Paper (2006), 2006-01-3400.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2006-01-3400.
[28] J. Yang, E.W. Kaiser, W.O. Siegl, R.W. Anderson, Effects of Port-Injection
Timing And Fuel Droplet Size On Total And Speciated Exhaust Hydrocarbon
Emissions, SAE Paper (1993), 930711. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/930711.
[29] P. A. Caton, L.J. Hamilton and J. S. Cowart, An Experimental and Modeling
Investigation into the Comparative Knock and Performance Characteristics of
E85, Gasohol [E10] and Regular Unleaded Gasoline [87 (R M)/2], SAE Paper
(2007), NO. 2007-01-0473. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2007-01-0473.