See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346549017

Investigation of the Gasoline Engine Performance and Emissions Working on

Methanol-Gasoline Blends Using Engine Simulation

Chapter · June 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.92858

CITATIONS READS

7 1,156

1 author:

Simeon Iliev
University of Ruse Angel Kanchev
51 PUBLICATIONS 319 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Simeon Iliev on 02 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 We are IntechOpen,
the world’s leading publisher of
Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists

5,100
Open access books available
126,000
International authors and editors
145M Downloads

Our authors are among the

154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

Interested in publishing with us?

Contact [email protected]
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter

Investigation of the Gasoline

Engine Performance and
Emissions Working on
Methanol-Gasoline Blends Using
Engine Simulation
Simeon Iliev

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop the one-dimensional model of a four-

cylinder, four-stroke, multi-point injection system SI engine and a direct injection
system SI engine for predicting the effect of various fuel types on engine perfor-
mances, specific fuel consumption, and emissions. Commercial software AVL
BOOST was used to examine the engine characteristics for different blends of
methanol and gasoline (by volume: 5% methanol [M5], 10% methanol [M10], 20%
methanol [M20], 30% methanol [M30], and 50% methanol [M50]). The methanol-
gasoline fuel blend results were compared to those of net gasoline fuel. The obtained
results show that when methanol-gasoline fuel blends were used, engine perfor-
mance such as power and torque increases and the brake-specific fuel consumption
increases with increasing methanol percentage in the blended fuel.

Keywords: methanol blends, alternative fuels, spark-ignition engine, emissions,

engine simulation

1. Introduction

Alternative fuels are derived from resources other than petroleum. When using
these fuels in internal combustion engines (ICE), they produce less air pollution
emissions than gasoline. Most of them are more economically beneficial than fossil
fuels. Last but not least, they are renewable. The most commonly used alternative
fuels are natural gas, propane, methanol, ethanol, and hydrogen. Lots of works have
been written on engine operating with these fuels individually, but very few com-
pared some of these alternative fuels together in the same engine [1–3]. The idea of
adding low contents of ethanol or methanol to gasoline is not new, extending back
at least to the 1970s, when oil supplies were reduced and a search for alternative
energy carriers began in order to replace gasoline and diesel fuel. Initially, methanol
was considered the most attractive alcohol to be added to gasoline. Methanol pro-
duction can be from biomass, coal, or natural gas with acceptable energy costs. The
gasification of biomass can lead to methanol, mixed alcohols, and Fischer-Tropsch

1
Numerical and Experimental Studies on Combustion Engines and Vehicles

liquids [4]. Since methanol can be produced from natural gas at no great cost, and is
quite easy to blend with gasoline, this alcohol was seen as an attractive additive.
Methanol can also be used in pure form in internal combustion engines; the fact that
it is a liquid fuel makes it suitable for storing and distributing. It does produce
hydrocarbon emissions similar to gasoline (different species); its single-carbon-
molecule nature and combustion characteristics mean that its emissions of oxides of
nitrogen and particulate matter are significantly lower than hydrocarbon fuels.
However, when using methanol in practice, it became clear that precautions had to
be taken when handling it and that methanol is aggressive to some materials, such
as plastic components and even metals in the fuel system [5].
Methanol has many advantages (characteristics) that make it very suitable for
use as a fuel in spark-ignition engine. Some of these characteristics are given in a
Table 1, and they are as follows:

• High molar expansion ratio

• High hydrogen-to-carbon ratio

• Being liquid at standard temperature and pressure

• High heat of vaporization (“latent heat”)

• High flame speed

• Low combustion temperature

• High specific energy ratio (i.e., energy per unit of fuel-air mixture)

Methanol is the simplest alcohol and is usually referred to as the “light”

alcohol. It is the simplest carbonaceous molecule that is liquid at standard
temperature and pressure. This makes it easy to store and transport with minimal
losses on the vehicle and in the fuel infrastructure. It is also known as methyl
alcohol. The higher autoignition temperature of methanol compared to gasoline
allows the engines to operate at a higher compression ratio; thereby they can be
more efficient.
The methanol consists of just one molecule unlike gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc.
which the properties can change depending on the source, and as such it is easier to
simulate the process for. The molecular weight of methanol is approximately four
times lighter than gasoline. The diffusion rate of lighter fuel is lower than that of
heavier fuel, and it results in lower emission.
Adding methanol to gasoline allows the fuel mixture to combust more
completely due to the presence of oxygen (inherent oxygen in its molecular struc-
ture), which increases the combustion efficiency and reduces the emission of CO
and NOx by converting them into CO2 and NO2. Besides, methanol does not contain
sulfur or complex organic compounds [9], resulting in zero emission of sulfur-based
pollutants (SO2 and SO3, which are responsible for acid rain). The organic emissions
(ozone precursors) from alcohol combustion have lower reactivity, which can
stimulate ozone formation [10].
Methanol has a higher latent heat of vaporization than gasoline (Table 1). It
provides a cooling effect on the intake charge compared to gasoline. This effect
improves the brake thermal efficiency and power output. The lower caloric value of
methanol due to oxygen content in its molecular structure requires higher fuel
quantity to be injected in order to achieve an equivalent brake power output.

2
Investigation of the Gasoline Engine Performance and Emissions Working on Methanol-Gasoline…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92858

Properties Gasoline Methanol

Chemical formula C8H15 CH3OH

Molar mass, kg/kmol 114 32

Oxygen content, wt% — 50

Carbon content, wt% 86 38

Hydrogen content, wt% 14 12

Stoichiometric AFR 14,5 6,43

Lower heating value, MJ/kg 44,3 20,1

Higher heating value, MJ/kg 48 22,8

Volumetric energy content, MJ/m3 31,746 15,871

Heat of evaporation, kJ/kg at 1 bar 375 1089

Research octane number 96,5 112

Motor octane number 87,2 91

Cetane number — <5

Boiling temperature, °C at 1 bar 27–245 65

Vapor pressure, bar at 20°C 0,25–0,45 0,13

Critical pressure, bar — 81

Critical temperature, °C — 239,4

Kinematic viscosity, cSt at 20°C 0,6 0,74

3
Destiny, kg/cm 740 798

Surface tension, N/m at 20°C — 0,023

Minimum ignition energy, mJ at φ = 1 0,8 0,21

Autoignition temperature, °C 246–280 470

Peak flame temperature, °C at 1 bar 2030 1890

Adiabatic flame temperature, K  2275 2143

Flammability limits (vol%) 1,4–7,6 6–36

Flash point, °C 45 12

Bulk modulus, N/mm2 at 20°C 2 MPa 1300 823

Specific CO2 emissions, g/MJ 73,95 68,44

Specific CO2 emissions relative to gasoline 1 0,93

Table 1.
Comparison of fuel properties [6–8].

The major issue encountered when blending water, methanol, and gasoline is
phase separation. The critical phase separation temperature of methanol-gasoline
blends increases with the amount of water present in the blend. Because of this very
small water tolerance of the methanol-gasoline blend, water contamination during
methanol transport and storage has to be avoided [11]. The blends with gasoline and
low methanol concentrations will increase the vapor pressure.
Another important problem is related to the engine cold starting of very high
blend alcohols in gasoline. Because of lower energy density and higher heat of
vaporization of methanol, more mass needs to evaporate and therefore more
energy. The lower flammability limit of methanol is higher than that of gasoline
which is also the reason for cold starting [12].

3
Numerical and Experimental Studies on Combustion Engines and Vehicles

Methanol has a higher octane number than pure gasoline fuel [13]. This
enables higher compression ratios of engines and, as a result, increases its thermal
efficiency [14].
There are many publications with different blends of alcohols and gasoline fuel.
For example, Shenghua et al. [15] used a gasoline engine to examine different
percentages of methanol blends (from 10 to 30%) in gasoline. From the results
obtained, it has been established that power and engine torque decreased, whereas
the brake thermal efficiency improved with the increase of methanol percentage in
the fuel blend. Another study [16] has studied the influence of methanol-gasoline
blends on the gasoline engine performance. The results obtained showed that the
highest brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) was obtained from 5% methanol-
gasoline blend. In another study, Altun et al. [17] studied the influence of methanol
and ethanol blending (5 and 10%) in gasoline fuel on engine performance and
emissions. Blended fuels showed the best result in emissions. The emissions of HC
are reduced by 13 and 15% for E10 and M10. The results obtained show a decrease
in CO emissions by 10,6 and 9,8%, but CO2 emission increased for E10 and M10.
The blended fuels with methanol and ethanol showed an increase in the brake-
specific fuel consumption and a decrease in break thermal efficiency compared to
gasoline. Some authors suggested that the oxygenated nature of alcohols can lead to
more complete combustion and consequently to reduced engine-out CO emissions
[18, 19]. Liang et al. [20] studied PM emission from gasoline direct-injected engine
and port fuel-injected engine fueled by gasoline and methanol-gasoline blend M15.
They found that the PM emission was lower for M15 than for gasoline.

2. Research methodology

The aim of the present chapter is to develop the one-dimensional model of four-
stroke port fuel injection (PFI) gasoline engine and four-stroke direct injection
(GDI) gasoline engine for predicting the effect of methanol-gasoline (M0–M50)
addition to gasoline on the exhaust emissions and performance of gasoline engine.
For this, simulation of gasoline SI engine (calibrated) as the basic operating condi-
tion and the laminar burning velocity correlations of methanol-gasoline blends for
calculating the changed combustion duration were used. The engine power, specific
fuel consumption, and exhaust emissions were compared and discussed [21, 22].
Computer simulation is becoming an important tool for time and cost efficiency
in an engine’s development. The simulation results are challenging to be obtained
experimentally. Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has allowed researchers
to understand the flow behavior and quantify important flow parameters such as
mass flow rates or pressure drops, under the condition that the CFD tools have been
properly validated against experimental results.
CFD software products include KIVA, AVL FIRE, AVSYS, STAR-CD, VECTIS,
FLUENT, PHOENICS, Flow Vision, and more. The above programs allow to model
with great accuracy the modeling of gases, the movement of the dispersed fuel in
the combustion chamber of the engine, the movement of the thin layer of fuel
formed on the surface of solid walls, the temperature field, and other phenomena.
The fluid-structure interaction analysis, successfully implemented in the Ansys
program, integrates state-of-the-art computational tools related to fluid and gas
mechanics and solid-state mechanics to allow a multidisciplinary research.
The software for thermodynamic and gas-dynamic calculations include AVL
BOOST, Ricardo WAVE, GT-Power, and others. These software products are
characterized by a well-developed user interface that includes one-dimensional and
multidimensional models.

4
Investigation of the Gasoline Engine Performance and Emissions Working on Methanol-Gasoline…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92858

2.1 Simulation setup

The simulation tools are the most used in recent years owing to its continuous
increase in computational power. The use of engine simulations enables optimization
of engine combustion, geometry, and operating characteristics toward improving
specific fuel consumption and exhaust emissions and reducing engine development
time and costs. Consequently, it can be expected that the use of engine simulations
during engine construction will continue to increase. Engine modeling is a fruitful
research area, and therefore many laboratories have their own engine thermodynamic
models with varying degrees of complexity, scope, and ease of use [23].
Many researchers develop their own computer code describing different pro-
cesses of engine operation. One of the studies [24] developed the computer code for
simulating spark-ignited engine using alternative fuels, and results were validated
with experimental data. The engine model is a quasi-dimensional two-zone model
including ordinary differential equations for describing dynamical behavior during
the intake, compression, power, and exhaust strokes. The engine model uses the
Woschni correlation to estimate engine heat transfer. Another author [25] created a
model for simulating the performance of spark-ignition engines fueled with gaso-
line and ethanol fuels and their mixtures. In this model the combustion chamber
was divided into burned and unburned zones separated by a flame front. The
pressure was assumed to be uniform throughout the cylinder charge. The instanta-
neous heat interaction between the burned and unburned zones and its walls was
calculated by using the semiempirical expression for a four-stroke engine [26].
The one-dimensional engine simulation is widely used for design, development,
calibration, and optimization because they make it possible for the entire engine to
be modeled, they do not require high computing power, and the calculations are
performed in a relatively short time [27, 28]. The one-dimensional (1D) engine
model consists of sub-models of selected processes that can be investigated using
more detailed modeling approaches (quasi-dimensional or three-dimensional
models) to increase the accuracy of the overall engine simulation results.
The model of combustion as part of one-dimensional engine simulations pro-
vides the burning rate that represents the heat release rate in the combustion
process for a given fuel blend, engine geometry, and set of operating conditions.
The burning rate can be computed empirically and or derived from physical,
detailed coupled turbulent flames, or chemical kinetic correlations of combustion
processes.
The one-dimensional model of SI engine is created by the AVL BOOST software
and has been employed to examine the emissions and performance working on
gasoline and methanol-gasoline blends. The preprocessing steps of AVL BOOST
enables the user to build a one-dimensional engine test bench setup using the
predefined elements provided in the software toolbox. The various elements are
joined by the desired connectors to establish the complete engine model using
pipelines. It is important to make a correct estimate of the boundary conditions as it
directly affects the accuracy of the results. Having a proper combustion model will
enhance the understanding of the physical phenomena, including the effects of
valve phasing, type of fuel, compression ratio, exhaust gas recirculation, etc., and,
thus, enable comprehensive design and optimization of the engine.
In Figure 1, PFIE symbolizes the engine, while C1 to C4 are the cylinders of the
SI engine. The cylinders of the engine are the main element in this model, because
they have many very important parameters to settle: the bore, stroke, internal
geometry, connecting rod, length and compression ratio, piston pin offset, and the
mean crankcase pressure. MP1 to MP18 symbolize the measuring points. The ple-
num is market with PL1 to PL4. System boundary are market with SB1 and SB2. The

5
Numerical and Experimental Studies on Combustion Engines and Vehicles

Figure 1.
Schematic of the gasoline PFI engine model.

cleaner is market with CL1. R1 to R10 stand for flow restrictions, CAT1 symbolize
catalyst and fuel injectors—I1 to I4 are. The flow pipes are numbered 1 to 34.
The calibrated gasoline PFI engine model was described by Iliev [29], and its
layout is shown in Figure 1 with engine specification shown in Table 2.
The schematic of the calibrated GDI engine model is shown in Figure 2 with
engine specification shown in Table 3.
The comparison between the properties of gasoline and methanol is presented in
Table 1. As shown in Table 1, compared with gasoline, methanol has a higher
elemental oxygen content and a lower heating value, molecular weight, elemental
carbon, hydrogen content and stoichiometric air/fuel ratio (AFR).

2.2 Description of combustion model

In this research, the Vibe (two-zone) model was chosen for simulation analysis
of the combustion. The combustion chamber was divided into two regions:
unburned gas region and burned gas regions [17]. For the burned charge and
unburned charge, the first law of thermodynamics is applied:

dmb ub dV b dQ F X dQ
Wb dmb dmBB,b
¼ pc þ þ hu hBB,b (1)
dα dα dα dα dα dα

6
Investigation of the Gasoline Engine Performance and Emissions Working on Methanol-Gasoline…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92858

Engine parameters Value

Bore 86 (mm)

Stroke 86 (mm)

Compression ratio 10.5

Connection rod length 143.5 (mm)

Number of cylinders 4

Piston pin offset 0 (mm)

Displacement 2000 (cc)

Intake valve open 20 BTDC (deg)

Intake valve close 70 ABDC (deg)

Exhaust valve open 50 BBDC (deg)

Exhaust valve close 30 ATDC (deg)

Piston surface area 5809 (mm2)

Cylinder surface area 7550 (mm2)

Number of strokes 4

Table 2.
PFI engine specification.

Figure 2.
Schematic of the gasoline GDI engine model.

7
Numerical and Experimental Studies on Combustion Engines and Vehicles

Engine parameters Value

Bore 80 (mm)

Stroke 78 (mm)

Compression ratio 11.9

Connection rod length 130 (mm)

Number of cylinders 4

Piston pin offset 0 (mm)

Displacement 1600 (cc)

Intake valve open 19 BTDC (deg)

Intake valve close 52 ABDC (deg)

Exhaust valve open 47 BBDC (deg)

Exhaust valve close 15 ATDC (deg)

Piston surface area 6600 (mm2)

Cylinder surface area 7700 (mm2)

Number of strokes 4

Table 3.
GDI engine specification.

dmu uu dV u X dQ
Wu dmB dmBB,u
¼ pc hu hBB,u (2)
dα dα dα dα dα

where dmu represents the change of the internal energy in the cylinder, pc dV
da is
dQ W
the piston work, dQ dmb
da stands for the fuel heat input, da is wall heat loses, and hu da
F

represents the enthalpy flow from the unburned to the burned zone due to the
conversion of a fresh charge to combustion products. The heat flux between the two
zones is neglected. hBB dm
da represents the enthalpy due to blow by, u and b in the
BB

subscript are unburned and burned gas.

Moreover, the sum of the zone volumes must be equal to the cylinder volume,
and the sum of the volume changes must be equal to the cylinder volume change:

dV b dV u dV
þ ¼ (3)
dα dα dα
Vb þ Vu ¼ V (4)

The amount of burned mixture at each time setup is obtained from the Vibe
function. For all other terms, for instance, wall heat losses, etc., models similar
to the single zone models with an appropriate distribution on the two zones are
used [30].

2.2.1 Mass fraction burned

The Wiebe function is widely used in internal combustion engine applications to

describe the fraction of mass burned in the combustion chamber during the com-
bustion process [31, 32].
To represent the mass fraction burned, the Wiebe function is chosen. The Wiebe
function for mass fraction burned is shown by the equation below:

8
Investigation of the Gasoline Engine Performance and Emissions Working on Methanol-Gasoline…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92858
"  mþ1 #
θ θo
xb ¼ 1 exp a (5)
∆θ

where xb is mass fraction burned, θo is start of combustion, ∆θ is burn duration,

a is efficiency factor, and b is shape factor (a and b are constant factors depending
on the fuel). For this research, a complete combustion is assumed. The value of “a”
is chosen to be 6.9 and the value of “b” to be 3 [33, 34]. The shape factor affects
ignition delay and initial flame development. However, the values are subject to
further analysis and provide scope for future research.

2.2.2 Mass fraction burned

The heat transfer to the walls of the combustion chamber is calculated from

Q wi ¼ hAi ðT c T wi Þ (6)

where Q wi is wall heat flow, Ai is surface area, h is heat transfer coefficient, T c is

temperature of gas in the cylinder, and T wi is wall temperature.
The Woschni model is selected to determine the heat transfer coefficient [35].

2.3 A description of exhaust emission model

In AVL BOOST the model of formation on NOx is based on Pattas and Hafner
[30], which incorporates the Zeldovich mechanism [36]. The reaction of Zeldovich
mechanism is given in Table 4.
The rate of NOx production was obtained using Eq. (7):
 
 2
 r1 r4
rNO ¼ CPPM CKM ð2, 0Þ: 1 α þ : (7)
1 þ αAK 2 1 þ AK 4
CNO:act 1
α¼
(8)
CNO:equ CKM
r1
AK 2 ¼ (9)
r2 þ r3
r4
AK 4 ¼ (10)
r5 þ r6

In the above equation, CPPM represents post-processing multiplier, CKM denotes

kinetic multiplier, C stands for molar concentration in equilibrium, and ri
represents reactions rates of the Zeldovich mechanism.

K0 (cm3/mol s)
 
Stoichiometry TАi
a[ ] TA [K]
Rate ki ¼ k0,i T a e T

R1 N2 + O = NO + N r1 = k1cN2co 4.93E13 0.0472 38,048,01

R2 O2 + N = NO + O r2 = k2cO2cN 1.48E08 1.5 2859,01

R3 N + OH = NO + H r3 = k3cOHcN 4.22E13 0.0 0,0

R4 N2O + O = NO + NO r4 = k4cN2OcO 4.58E13 0.0 12,130,6

R5 O2 + N2 = N2O + O r5 = k5cO2cN2 2.25E10 0.825 50,569,7

R6 OH + N2 = N2O + H r6 = k6cOHcN2 9.14E07 1.148 36,190,66

Table 4.
Reactions according to the Zeldovich mechanism.

9
Numerical and Experimental Studies on Combustion Engines and Vehicles

The model of NOx formation is based on Onorati et al. [37]:

rCO ¼ CConst ðr1 þ r2 Þ:ð1 αÞ (11)

CCO:act
α¼ (12)
CCO:equ

In Eq. (11), C represents molar concentration in equilibrium and ri represents

reaction rates based on the model.
The unburned HC have different sources. A complete description of HC forma-
tion still cannot be given, and the achievement of a reliable model within a thermo-
dynamic approach is definitely prevented by the fundamental assumptions and the
requirement of reduced computational times. Still, a phenomenological model
which accounts for the main formation mechanisms and is able to capture the HC
trends as function of the engine operating parameter may be proposed. The follow-
ing important sources of unburned HC can be identified in SI engines [38]:

1. During the intake and compression stroke, fuel vapor is absorbed into the oil
layer and deposits on the cylinder walls. The following desorption occurs when
the cylinder pressure decreases during the expansion stroke, and complete
combustion cannot take place anymore.

2. A fraction of the charge enters the crevice volumes and is not burned since the
flame quenches at the entrance.

3. Occasional complete misfire or partial burning takes place when combustion

quality is poor.

4. Quench layers on the combustion chamber wall which are left as the flame
extinguishes prior to reaching the walls.

5. The flow of fuel vapor into the exhaust system during valve overlap in gasoline
engines.

The first two mechanisms and in particular the crevice formation are considered
to be the most important and need to be accounted for in a thermodynamic model.
Partial burn and quench layer effect cannot be physically described in a quasi-
dimensional approach, but may be included by adopting tunable semiempirical
correlations.
The formation of unburned HC in the crevices is described by assuming that the
pressure in the cylinder and in the crevices is the same and that the temperature of
the mass in the crevice volumes is equal to the piston temperature.
The mass in the crevices at any time is described by Eq. (13):
pV crevice M
mcrevice ¼ (13)
RT piston

In Eq. (13), mcrevice represents the mass of unburned charge in the crevice, p denotes
cylinder pressure, V crevice stands for total crevice volume, M represents unburned
molecular weight, T piston is the temperature of the piston, and R denotes gas constant.
The second important source of HC is the presence of lubricating oil in the fuel
or on the walls of the combustion chamber. During the compression stroke, the fuel
vapor pressure increases, so, by Henry’s law, absorption occurs even if the oil was
saturated during the intake. During combustion the concentration of fuel vapor in

10
Investigation of the Gasoline Engine Performance and Emissions Working on Methanol-Gasoline…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92858

the burned gases goes to zero, so the absorbed fuel vapor will desorb from the liquid
oil into the burned gases. Fuel solubility is a positive function of the molecular
weight, so the oil layer contributed to HC emissions depending on the different
solubilities of individual hydrocarbons in the lubricating oil.
The assumptions made in the development of the HC absorption/desorption are
the following:

1. Fuel is constituted by a single hydrocarbon species, completely vaporized in

the fresh mixture.

2. The oil film temperature is at the same as the cylinder wall.

3. Traverse flow across the oil film is negligible.

4. Oil is represented by squalane (C30H62), whose characteristics resemble those

of the SAE5W20 lubricant.

5. Diffusion of the fuel in the oil film is the limiting factor, for the diffusion
constant in the liquid phase is 104 times smaller than the corresponding value
in the gas phase.

The radial distribution of the fuel mass fraction in the oil film can be determined
by solving the diffusion Eq. (14):

∂wF ∂2 wF
D ¼0 (14)
∂t ∂r2

In Eq. (14), wF represents fuel’s mass fraction in the oil film, t is the time, r
stands for radial position in the oil film (distance from the wall), and D is relative
(fuel-oil) diffusion coefficient.

3. Result and discussion for gasoline PFI engine

The present research focused on the performance and emission characteristics of

the methanol-gasoline blends. Various concentrations of the blends 0% methanol
(M0), 5% methanol (M5), 10% methanol (M10), 20% methanol (M20), 30%
methanol (M30), 50% methanol (M50), and 85% methanol (M85) by volume were
analyzed.

3.1 Engine performance characteristics

Figures 3 and 4 show the results of the brake power and torque for methanol-
gasoline blended fuels at various engine speeds.
The variation of brake power versus engine speed was obtained at full load
conditions for various concentrations of M5, M10, M20, M30, M50, and net gaso-
line M0. When the methanol content in the blended fuel was increased (M10, M20
and M30), the brake power slightly increased for all engine speeds. The brake
power at net gasoline was higher in comparison of M50 for all engine speeds. The
methanol’s heat of evaporation is higher than that of gasoline fuel, providing air-
fuel charge cooling and increasing the density of the charge. The methanol’s blended
fuel causes the equivalence ratio of blend approaches to stoichiometric condition
which can lead to a better combustion. However, methanol’s heating value is lower

11
Numerical and Experimental Studies on Combustion Engines and Vehicles

Figure 3.
Influence of methanol-gasoline blended fuels on brake power.

Figure 4.
Influence of methanol-gasoline blended fuels on engine torque.

than that of gasoline, and it can neutralize the previous positive effects.
Consequently, a lower power output is obtained at M50.
Figure 4 shows the engine torque for various percentages of methanol in its
blends with gasoline. Increasing the methanol content (M10 and M20) increased
slightly the torque of the engine. The brake torque of gasoline was higher than those
of M30 and M50.
Because of the existence of oxygen in the methanol chemical component, and
the increase of methanol, lean mixtures are produced that decrease the equivalent
air-fuel ratio to a lower value, and due to the presence of oxygen in the combustion
chamber, the burning is more efficient.
Figure 5 shows the BSFC for various percentages of methanol in its blends with
gasoline versus engine speeds. As shown in this figure, the BSFC increased as the
methanol percentage increased. The reason has been known—the heating value and
stoichiometric air-fuel ratio are the smallest for this fuel, which means that more
fuel is needed for specific air-fuel equivalence ratio. The highest specific fuel
consumption is obtained at M50 blended fuel.

12
Investigation of the Gasoline Engine Performance and Emissions Working on Methanol-Gasoline…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92858

Figure 5.
Influence of methanol-gasoline blended fuels on brake-specific fuel consumption.

Figure 6.
Influence of methanol-gasoline blended fuels on CO emissions.

Furthermore, there is a small difference between the BSFC for net gasoline and
the mixtures with methanol (M5 to M30). As engine speed increased reaching
2000 rpm, the BSFC decreased reaching its minimum value.

3.2 Emission characteristics

The effect of the methanol-gasoline blends on CO emissions versus engine

speeds can be seen in Figure 6. When methanol percentage increases, the CO
emissions decrease. The reason for this could be explained with the enrichment of
oxygen owing to the methanol, in which an increase in the proportion of oxygen
will promote the further oxidation of CO during the engine exhaust process.
Another significant reason for this reduction is that methanol (CH3OH) has less
carbon than gasoline (C8H18).
The effect of the methanol-gasoline blends on HC emissions is shown in
Figure 7. When methanol percentage increases, the HC concentration decreases.
The HC emissions decrease with the increase of the relative air-fuel ratio.

13
Numerical and Experimental Studies on Combustion Engines and Vehicles

Figure 7.
Influence of methanol-gasoline blended fuels on HC emissions.

Figure 8.
Influence of methanol-gasoline blended fuels on NOx emissions.

The influence of the methanol-gasoline blends on NOx emissions can be seen in

Figure 8. The methanol-gasoline blends lead to an increase in NOx emissions as
compared to the net gasoline. When combustion process is closer to stoichiometric,
flame temperature increases, and the NOx emissions increase as well.

4. Result and discussion for gasoline GDI engine

Different concentrations of the blends (0% methanol (M0), 5% methanol (M5),

10% methanol (M10), 20% methanol (M20), 30% methanol (M30), and 50%
methanol (M50) by volume) were analyzed using AVL BOOST at full load condi-
tions for GDI engine.

4.1 Engine performance characteristics

The results of the brake power and specific fuel consumption for methanol-
gasoline blended fuels at different engine speeds are shown in Figures 9 and 10.

14
Investigation of the Gasoline Engine Performance and Emissions Working on Methanol-Gasoline…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92858

Figure 9.
Influence of methanol-gasoline blended fuels on brake power.

Figure 10.
Influence of methanol-gasoline blended fuels on engine torque.

The variation of brake power versus engine speed was obtained at full load
conditions for various concentrations of M5, M10, M20, M30, M50, and net gaso-
line M0. When the methanol content in the blended fuel was increased (M5 and
M10), there was not a significant increase in engine brake power. The engine brake
power was higher in operation with gasoline in comparison to M50 for all engine
speeds. The methanol’s heat of evaporation is higher than that of gasoline fuel,
providing air-fuel charge cooling and increasing the density of the charge. The
methanol blended fuel causes the equivalence ratio of blend approaches to stoichio-
metric condition which can lead to a better combustion. However, methanol’s
heating value is lower than that of gasoline, and it can neutralize the previous
positive effects. Consequently, a lower power output is obtained at M50.
Figure 10 shows the engine torque for various percentages of methanol in its
blends with gasoline. Increasing methanol content (M5 and M10) increased slightly
the torque of the engine. The brake torque of gasoline was higher than those of
M20, M30, and M50.
Because of the existence of oxygen in the methanol chemical component, and
the increase of methanol, lean mixtures are produced that decrease the equivalent
air-fuel ratio to a lower value, and due to the presence of oxygen in the combustion
chamber, the burning is more efficient.
Figure 11 shows BSFC for various percentages of methanol in its blends with
gasoline versus engine speeds. As shown in this figure, the BSFC increased as the

15
Numerical and Experimental Studies on Combustion Engines and Vehicles

Figure 11.
Influence of methanol-gasoline blended fuels on brake-specific fuel consumption.

methanol percentage increased. This can be described with heating value and stoi-
chiometric air-fuel ratio are the smallest for these two fuels, which means that for
specific air-fuel equivalence ratio more fuel is needed. The highest specific fuel
consumption is obtained at M50 blended fuel.
Furthermore, there is a small difference between the BSFC for net gasoline and
the mixtures with methanol (M5 to M20). As engine speed increased reaching
3000 rpm, the BSFC decreased, reaching its minimum value.

4.2 Emission characteristics

The effect of the methanol-gasoline blends on CO emissions versus engine

speeds can be seen in Figure 12. When methanol percentage increases, the CO
emissions decrease. The reason for this could be explained with the enrichment of
oxygen owing to the methanol, in which an increase in the proportion of oxygen
will promote the further oxidation of CO during the engine exhaust process.
Another significant reason for this reduction is that methanol (CH3OH) has less
carbon than gasoline (C8H18). Typical of direct injection engines is that they work
with lean mixtures. Ensuring sufficient oxygen in the piston bowl for good flame

Figure 12.
Influence of methanol-gasoline blended fuels on CO emissions.

16
Investigation of the Gasoline Engine Performance and Emissions Working on Methanol-Gasoline…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92858

Figure 13.
Influence of methanol-gasoline blended fuels on HC emissions.

Figure 14.
Influence of methanol-gasoline blended fuels on NOx emissions.

propagation leads to higher combustion efficiency, reduced CO emissions, and

optimal burn duration.
The influence of the methanol-gasoline blends on HC emissions is visible in
Figure 13. When methanol percentage increases, the HC concentration decreases.
The HC emissions decrease with the increase of the relative air-fuel ratio.
The effect of the methanol-gasoline blends on NOx emissions can be seen in
Figure 14. When methanol percentage increases, the NOx concentration increases.
Other authors [39] have obtained similar results. When combustion process is closer
to stoichiometric, flame temperature increases, and the NOx emissions increase as
well. The higher combustion temperature and local oxygen concentration in the peak
temperature zone were the influencing factors for NOx emission formation.

5. Conclusions

The purpose of the present chapter is to demonstrate the influences of methanol

addition to gasoline on a four-cylinder, four-stroke, multipoint injection system SI
engine and a direct injection system SI on engine performance and emission char-
acteristics. The summarized results from this study are the following.

17
Numerical and Experimental Studies on Combustion Engines and Vehicles

With the increase of the percentage of methanol in the blended fuel, the engine
brake power decreased for various engine speeds for PFI engine and GDI engine.
With the increase of the percentage of methanol in the blends (M5 to M10 for
PFI engine and M5 to M10 for GDI engine), the brake power slightly increased, and
with the increase of the methanol in the blends (M30 and M50), the brake power
decreased.
As the percentage of methanol increased, the BSFC increased. The blended fuels
show lower engine brake power and higher BSFC than net gasoline. Furthermore,
there is a slight difference between the BSFC of gasoline and gasoline blended fuels
(M10 and M20 for PFI engine and M5 and M10 for GDI engine).
When there is an increase in methanol percentage, the CO and HC concentration
decreases for PFI and GDI engines.
Increasing the percentage of methanol in the blends leads to a significant
increase in NOx emissions. The lowest NOx emissions are obtained at M50
methanol-gasoline blend at GDI engines.

Acknowledgements

The present chapter has been written with the Project No 2020-RU-03’s financial
assistance.
We are also eternally grateful to AVL-AST, Graz, Austria, for granting the use of
AVL BOOST under the university partnership program.

Author details

Simeon Iliev
University of Ruse “Angel Kanchev”, Ruse, Bulgaria

*Address all correspondence to: spi@uni-ruse

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

18
Investigation of the Gasoline Engine Performance and Emissions Working on Methanol-Gasoline…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92858

References

[1] Iliev S. Investigation of N-butanol [9] Elfasakhany A. Investigation on

blending with gasoline using a 1-D performance and emissions
engine model. Proceedings of the 3rd characteristics of an internal
International Conference on Vehicle combustion engine fueled with
Technology and Intelligent Transport petroleum gasoline and a hybrid
Systems (VEHITS 2017). 2017:385-391. methanol–gasoline fuel. IJET-IJENS.
DOI: 10.5220/0006284703850391 2013;13:24-43

[2] Pourkhesalian AM, Shamekhi AH, [10] Akutsu Y, Toyoda F, Tomita K,

Salimi F. Alternative fuel and gasoline in Yoshizawa F, Tamura M, Yoshida T.
an SI engine: A comparative study of Effect of exhaust from alcohol fuel on
performance and emissions ozone formation in the atmosphere.
characteristics. Fuel. 2010;89:1056-1063 Atmospheric Environment: Part A
General Top. 1991:1383-1389. DOI:
[3] Varol Y, Oner C, Oztop HF, Altun S. 10.1016/0960-1686(91)90247-5
Comparison of methanol, ethanol, or n-
butanol blending with unleaded gasoline [11] Liu D, Qi Q , Zhang H, et al.
on exhaust emissions of an SI engine. Properties, performance, and emissions
Energy Source, Part A. 2014;36:938-948 of methanol-gasoline blends in a spark
ignition engine. Proceedings of the
[4] Chum H, Overend R. Biomass and Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
renewable fuels. Fuel Processing Part D. 2005;219(3):405-412
Technology. 2001;71:187-195. DOI:
10.1016/S0378-3820(01)00146-1 [12] Pearson RJ, Turner JWG. GEM
ternary blends: Testing iso-stoichiometric
[5] Egebäck K, Henke M, Rehnlund B, mixtures of gasoline, ethanol and
Wallin M, Westerholm R. Blending of methanol in a production flex-fuel vehicle
ethanol in gasoline for spark ignition fitted with a physical alcohol sensor. SAE
engines—Problem inventory and Paper No. 2012-01-1279; 2012
evaporative measurements.
Rapport MTC. 2005;5407:8-9 [13] Silva R, Cataluna R, Menezes EW,
Samios D, Piatnicki CMS. Effect of
[6] MAN Diesel &Turbo. Using additives on the antiknock properties
Methanol Fuel in the MAN B&W ME- and Reid vapor pressure of gasoline.
LGI Series, 5510-0172-00ppr; 2014 Fuel. 2005;84:951-959

[7] Iliev S. Comparison of Ethanol and [14] Raveendran K, Ganesh A. Heating

Methanol Blending with Gasoline Using value of biomass and biomass pyrolysis
Engine Simulation, Biofuels— products. Fuel. 1996;75:1715-1720
Challenges and Opportunities. Mansour
Al Qubeissi: IntechOpen; 2018. [15] Shenghua L, Clemente ERC,
pp. 139-159. DOI: 10.5772/ Tiegang H, Yanjv W. Study of spark
intechopen.81776 ignition engine fueled with methanol/
gasoline fuel blends. Applied Thermal
[8] Vancoillie J. Modeling the Engineering. 2007;27:1904-1910
Combustion of Light Alcohols in Spark-
Ignition Engines. Vakgroep Mechanica [16] Bilgin A, Sezer I. Effects of
van Stroming, Warmte en Verbranding methanol addition to gasoline on the
Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, B-9000 performance and fuel cost of a spark
Gent, Belgie: Ghent University; 2013. ignition engine. Energy & Fuels. 2008;
pp. 45-47 22:2782-2788

19
Numerical and Experimental Studies on Combustion Engines and Vehicles

[17] Altun S, Oztop H, Oner C, Varol Y. [25] Al-Baghdadi MAS. A simulation

Exhaust emissions of methanol and model for a single cylinder four-stroke
ethanol-unleaded gasoline blends in a spark ignition engine fueled with
spark ignition engine. Thermal Science. alternative fuels. Turkish Journal of
2013;17(1):291-297 Engineering and Environmental
Sciences. 2007;30(6):331-350
[18] Liu SH, Clemente ERC, Hu TG,
et al. Study of spark ignition engine [26] Gatowski J, Balles EN, Chun K,
fueled with methanol/gasoline fuel Nelson F, Ekchian J, Heywood JB. Heat
blends. Applied Thermal Engineering. Release Analysis of Engine Pressure
2007;27(11–12):1904-1910. DOI: Data, Technical Report. Warrendale,
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2006.12.024 PA: Society of Automotive Engineers,
Inc.; 1984
[19] Svensson E, Li C, Shamun S et al.
Potential levels of soot, NOx, HC and [27] Heywood JB. Engine combustion
CO for methanol combustion. SAE modeling—An overview. In: Mattavi JN,
Technical Paper 2016-01-0887; 2016 Amann CA, editors. Combustion
Modeling in Reciprocating Engines.
[20] Liang B, Ge Y, Tan J, Han X, Gao L, New York: Plenum Press; 1980. pp. 1-35.
Hao L, et al. Comparison of PM emissions ISBN 0-306-40431-1
from a gasoline direct injected (GDI)
vehicle and a port fuel injected (PFI) [28] Heywood JB. Internal Combustion
vehicle measured by electrical low Engine Fundamentals. New York:
pressure impactor (ELPI) with two fuels: McGrawHill; 1988
Gasoline and M15 methanol gasoline.
Journal of Aerosol Science. 2013;57:22-31 [29] Iliev S, Hadjiev K. Theoretical study
of engine performance working on
[21] Iliev S. A comparison of ethanol and methanol-gasoline blends. Proceedings
methanol blending with gasoline using a of the WCE. 2014;II:1459-1463
1-D engine model. Procedia
Engineering. 2015;100:1013-1022. DOI: [30] AVL List Gmbh. AVL Boost—
10.1016/j.proeng.2015.01.461 Theory. Hans-List-Platz 1, A-8020 Graz,
Austria; 2013
[22] Iliev S. A comparison of ethanol,
methanol and butanol blending with [31] Heywood JB et al. Development and
gasoline and relationship with Eengine use of a cycle simulation to predict SI
performances and emissions. In: engine efficiency and NOx emissions.
Proceedings of the 29th DAAAM SAE. 1979;790291
International Symposium; 2018.
pp. 0505-0514 [32] Montenegro G, Onorati A,
Piscaglia F, D’Errico G. Integrated 1D-
[23] Alla GA. Computer simulation of a multi-D fluid dynamic models for the
four stroke spark ignition engine. simulation of ICE intake and exhaust
Energy Conversion and Management. systems. SAE Technical Paper
2012;43(8):1043-1061 Series 2007. pp. 3-7. Technical Report
2007-01-0495; 2007. DOI: 10.4271/
[24] Pourkhesalian AM, Shamekhi AH, 2007-01-0495
Salimi F. Alternative fuel and gasoline in
an si engine: A comparative study of [33] Ghojel J. Review of the development
performance and emissions and applications of the Wiebe function:
characteristics. Fuel. 2010;89(5): A tribute to the contribution of Ivan
1056-1063 Wiebe to engine research. International

20
 Investigation of the Gasoline Engine Performance and Emissions Working on Methanol-Gasoline…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92858

Journal of Engine Research. 2010;11(4):

297-312

[34] Agarwal AK, Karare H, Dhar A.

Combustion, performance, emissions
and particulate characterization of a
methanol-gasoline blend (gasohol)
fuelled medium duty spark ignition
transportation engine. Fuel Processing
Technology. 2014;121:16-24

[35] Woschni G. A Universally

Applicable Equation for the
Instantaneous Heat Transfer Coefficient
in the Internal Combustion Engine,
Technical Report; SAE Technical Paper;
1967

[36] Bowman C. Kinetics of pollutant

formation and destruction in
combustion. Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science. 1975;1(1):33-45

[37] Onorati A, Ferrari G, D’Errico G. 1D

unsteady flows with chemical reactions
in the exhaust duct-system of S.I.
engines: Predictions and Experiments.
SAE Paper No. 2001-01-0939. 2001

[38] Montenegro G, Onorati A. Modeling

of silencers for IC engine intake and
exhaust systems by means of an
integrated 1D-multiD approach. SAE
International Journal of Engines. 2009;
1(1):466. DOI: 10.4271/2008-01-0677

[39] Gong Li Y, Deng YW, Yuan WH,

Fu J, Zhang B. Experimental
comparative study on combustion,
performance and emissions
characteristics of methanol, ethanol and
butanol in a spark ignition engine.
Applied Thermal Engineering. 2017;115:
53-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2016.12.037

21

View publication stats