Eect of ethanolgasoline blends on engine performance

and exhaust emissions in dierent compression ratios

Hu seyin Serdar Yu cesu
*
, Tolga Topgu l, Can C inar, Melih Okur
Gazi University, Faculty of Technical Education, Department of Automotive, 06500 Teknikokullar/Ankara, Turkey
Received 18 May 2005; accepted 16 March 2006
Available online 5 May 2006
Abstract
Renewable energy sources for the gasoline engines alcohols gain importance recently. These renewable energy sources have attracted
the attention of researchers as alternative fuel due to their high octane number. In addition, these are also clean energy sources and can
be obtained from the biomass alcohols with low carbon like ethanol. In this study, the eect of compression ratio on engine performance
and exhaust emissions was examined at stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, full load and minimum advanced timing for the best torque MBT in
a single cylinder, four stroke, with variable compression ratio and spark ignition engine.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Spark ignition engine; Compression ratio; Exhaust emissions; Alternative fuel; Ethanol
1. Introduction
The majority of the energy used today is obtained from
the fossil fuels. Due to the continuing increases in the cost
of fossil fuels, demands for clean energy have also been
increasing. Therefore, alternative fuels sources are sought.
Some of the most important fuels are biogas, natural gas,
vegetable oil and its esters alcohols and hydrogen. Ethyl
alcohol, which is one of the renewable energy sources
and is obtained from biomass, has been tested intensively
in the internal combustion engines. Some properties of
ethyl alcohol with comparison to gasoline are given in
Table 1 [1].
Due to the high evaporation heat, high octane number
and high ammability temperature, ethyl alcohol has posi-
tive inuence on the engine performance and increases the
compression ratio. The low reid evaporation pressure
enable to storage and transportation safely. Since the oxy-
gen contain has positive eect on environment. In spite of
its positive eect when used in gasoline engine as alterna-
tive fuel, it is necessary to make some modication on
the engine. The fuel system requires more fuel. The vehicle
takes less distance with alcohol fuel than gasoline. Because
of the rst cold starting problem of the pure ethanol, the
blend called E85 has a widespread usage as alternative fuel.
This fuel consists of 15 vol% unleaded gasoline and
85 vol% ethanol. However, the other blend consisting of
90% gasoline and 10% ethanol called as gasohol. In addi-
tion, the ame of the alcohol is colorless in the natural
burning processes and this is another advantage of alcohols
[2,3].
The eects of ethanol and gasoline blends on spark igni-
tion engine emissions were investigated by Hseih et al., [4].
In their study, test fuels were prepared using 99.9% pure
ethanol and gasoline blended with the volumetric ratios
of 030% (E0, E5, E10, E20 and E30). These percentages
represent the ratios of ethanol amount in total blends. In
the experiments performed at dierent throttle openings
and engine speeds, nearly the same torque values were
obtained when used dierent ratios of ethanolgasoline
1359-4311/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2006.03.006
*
Corresponding author. Address: Department of Mechanical Educa-
tion, Faculty of Technical Education, Gazi University, Besevler, 06500
Ankara, Turkey, Tel.: +90 312 212 68 20/1850; fax: +90 312 212 00 59.
E-mail address: yucesu@gazi.edu.tr (H.S. Yu cesu).
www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng
Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 22722278
blends compared with pure gasoline. Only the torque
values obtained using E5 and E30 blends were lower than
that of pure gasoline (E0) especially at high engine speeds
(after 4000 rpm) and partly open throttle in 20%. It is
reported that, this arose from the original fuel injection
system strategies which prepare rich fuel mixtures. There-
fore, the leaning eect of ethanol to increase the air fuel
equivalence ratio (k) to higher value, and make the burning
closer to be stoichiometric. As a result the better combus-
tion can be achieved and higher torque output can be
acquired.
The eects of nine dierent volumetric percentages of
ethanolgasoline blends, ranging from 10% to 40%, on
engine emissions were tested at six dierent cars which were
produced between 1990 and 1992. In the experiments, lin-
ear variations of emissions were observed with respect to
ethanol percentage. In the highest ethanol percentage
which is 42%, the HC and CO emissions decreased about
30% and 50%, respectively, and the fuel consumption
increased approximately 15% [5].
The eects of gasoline blends containing oxygen on
emissions were tested on six cars produced in European
countries. The experiments were performed on chassis
dynamometer using ECE cruise cycle. In the cycle 10%
MTBE, 15% MTBE and 5.2% ethanol were used as fuel,
the CO emission 1530%, HC emission 1020% and NO
x
emissions 1.31.7% decreased [6].
The eect of alcohol and gasoline blends contained by
mass ratio of 1.25%, 2.5%, 3.75% and 5% oxygen on engine
emissions were investigated experimentally by Taylor et al.
[7]. Methanol, ethanol, i-propanol and n-propanol were
used as fuel. When using alcohol and gasoline blends con-
tained by mass ratio of 5% oxygen, the emissions HC and
CO decreased 40% and 75%, respectively.
Cowart et al. used methanol M85 and ethanol E85 as
fuels [8]. When alcohols blended fuels were used the engine
performance increased. The engine torque and power
increased with the both fuels M85 and E85 7% and 4%,
respectively.
Hydrogen, ethanol and gasoline blends were examined
in a four stroke spark ignition engine [9]. In the experi-
ments, ethanol blended gasoline in volumetric ratios
ranging from 0% to 30% and hydrogen were added to the
blend in mass ratios ranging from 0% to 20%. The addition
of 8% of hydrogen with 30% of ethanol into a gasoline
engine operating at nine compression ratios and 1500
rpm causes a 48.5% reduction in CO emission, 31.1%
reduction in NO
x
emission and 58.5% reduction in spe-
cic fuel consumption. The engine power and thermal e-
ciency were increased by 4.72% and 10.1%, respectively.
When ethanol was added to the gasoline, NO
x
and CO
emissions decreased and specic fuel consumption
increased. When hydrogen was added to the blend, CO
emission decreased and NO
x
emission increased. In addi-
tion, thermal eciency increased and specic fuel con-
sumption decreased.
Eect of ethanol and unleaded gasoline blends on engine
performance was investigated by Al-Hasan [10]. Ten dier-
ent ethanolgasoline blends were prepared for the experi-
ments. The ethanol amount in the blend was in the range
of 025% and the percentage of ethanol was increased
2.5% in each blend. The ethanol was 99% pure. The results
obtained from the experimental studies showed that the
engine emissions and performance were improved. The
engine power, brake thermal eciency and volumetric e-
ciency were increased by 8.3%, 9% and 7% mean average
values, respectively when the ethanol blended fuels were
used. In addition brake specic fuel consumption decrease
2.4% and equivalence air fuel ratio decrease by about 3.7%.
The blends had positive inuence on exhaust emissions.
The CO and HC emissions decreased by 46.5% and
24.3%, respectively. The CO
2
increased 7.5% nearly. The
best performance and emissions results were obtained for
20% ethanol 80% unleaded gasoline blend.
The eects of gasoline ethanol blends and compression
ratio on engine performance were investigated [11]. In the
experiment 10%, 20% and 30% ethanolgasoline blends
were used as fuel. Optimum compression ratio which
obtained maximum indicated power was determined for
each blend. For the 10%, 20% and 30% ethanolgasoline
blends, the optimum compression ratios of 8, 10 and 12
were obtained.
Wu et al. [12] investigated the eect of airfuel ratio on
SI engine performance and pollutant emissions using
ethanolgasoline blends. The result of engine performance
tests showed that torque output improves when using eth-
anolgasoline blends. However, there is no appreciable dif-
ference on the brake specic heat consumption. CO and
HC emissions reduced with the increase of ethanol content
in the blended fuel. The maximum CO
2
emission was
obtained at k 1.01, but the smallest amount CO
2
emis-
sion obtained with E30. In their study found out that by
using 10% ethanol fuel, can reduce pollutant emission
eciently.
In this work, eects of compression ratio on engine per-
formance and exhaust emissions were investigated with dif-
ferent ethanolgasoline fuel blends. Experiments were
performed at three dierent engine speeds which were
2000, 3500 and 5000 rpm and wide open throttle. The
aim of this work is to clarify best working conditions at dif-
ferent compression ratios.
Table 1
Some properties of gasoline and ethanol [2]
Gasoline Ethanol
Chemical formula C
4
C
12
C
2
H
5
OH
Molecular weight 100105 46
Oxygen (mass%) 04 34.7
Net lower heating value (MJ/kg) 43.5 27
Latent heat (kJ/L) 223.2 725.4
Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio 14.6 9
Vapor pressure at 23.5 C (kPa) 6090 17
MON 8292 92
RON 91100 111
H.S. Yu cesu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 22722278 2273
2. Experimental procedure and equipment
In the experimental study, a single cylinder Hydra spark
ignition engine with injection system was used. Specica-
tions of the test engine are given in Table 2.
The tests were performed at 2000, 3500 and 5000 rpm
and at stoichiometric air fuel ratio given MBT (Maximum
Brake Torque timing) and at full open throttle (WOT). The
test fuels were gasoline (E0) and gasoline ethanol blends
E10, E20, E40 and E60, the numbers following E indicate
percentage of volumetric amount of ethanol. The experi-
ments were performed at six dierent compression ratios
ranging from 8:1 to 13:1 for each fuel and the eect of
engine performance was investigated. The purity ratio of
ethanol is 99.5%. Properties of ethanolunleaded gasoline
blended fuels are shown in Table 3.
Air consumption was measured using Go-power M 5000
model air-meter. A suitable venturi for the engine was used
in air meter to obtain 1 mm water column sensitivity. Fuel
consumption was measured using Ohaus GT 8000 model
scale in sensitivity of 0.1 g and for time measurement;
Robic SC-700 model chronometer was used. Airfuel ratio
and exhaust emissions were measured using Sun MGA
1200 model emission tester. Specications of the emission
tester are given in Table 4 and the schematic view of test
bench is seen in Fig. 1.
3. Results and discussion
Engine torque and brake specic fuel consumption vari-
ations at 2000 rpm engine speed are seen in Fig. 2. The
engine torque increased with increasing compression ratio
up to 11:1, the increasing ratio is about 8% when compared
with 8:1 compression ratio. However, from 11:1 to 13:1
compressions ratio, increments are about 0.95% with E0.
The highest increasing ratio of engine torque was obtained
at 13:1 compression ratio with E40 and E60 fuels, the incre-
ment is about 14% when compared with 8:1 compression
ratio. Minimum brake specic fuel consumption (BSFC)
was obtained at 11:1 compression ratio with E0 fuel. Com-
parison with 8:1 compression ratio, the BSFC decreased
10% and after 11:1 compression ratio the BSFC increased
again. The maximum decrease in BSFC was found to be
15% when E40 was used. Variation of MBT related to
the compression ratio is seen in Fig. 3. To reach the max-
imum engine torque in the gasoline tests, the ignition
advance increased gradually at 8:1, 9:1 and 10:1 compres-
sion ratios. In compression ratios of 8:1, 9:1 and 10:1, the
octane number of the gasoline allowed increasing spark
advanced timing and after the compression ratio of 10:1,
the spark ignition timing could not be increased to reach
MBT. Therefore, the engine operated at advanced timing
which did not cause detonation at a given compression
ratio. Because of sucient octane number, the E40 and
E60 fuels are advantageous in terms of engine
performance.
Table 2
Test engine specications
Item Specication
Type Hydra
Number of cylinder 1
Cylinder bore stroke 80.26 88.9 mm
Maximum speed 5400 rpm
Maximum power 15 kW
Compression ratio 5/113/1
Valve arrangement Overhead camshaft, two vertical valves
Fuel system Petrol injection
Timing range 70 BTDC20 ATDC
Table 3
Properties of ethanolunleaded gasoline blended fuels (E0, E10, E20, E40 and E60)
Property item Method Test fuels
E0 E10 E20 E40 E60
Distillation (vol%)
70 C ASTM D 86 24 40.2 39.3 37.7 18.2
100 C 46.8 53.9 66 84.2 92.5
180 C 97.6 97.3 98 98.2 98.7
Density (kg/m
3
at 15 C) ASTM D 1298 764.9 768 771.5 780.6 789.5
RVP (kPa) ASTM D 323 57.6 66.7 66.2 63 57.4
Lead content (g/L) ASTM D 3237 0.004 0.003 0.002 0 0
Sulfur (wt%) ASTM D 5453 0.012 0.017 0.022 0.026 0.032
Stoichiometric airfuel ratio (weight)
a
14.7 14.13 13.56 12.42 11.28
Lower heating value (kJ/kg)
a
43,932 42,185 40,430 36,870 33,400
RON ASTM D 2699 86.4 87.4 89.8 90.9 92.7
MON ASTM D 2700 98.8 99.9 101.6 101.7 102.8
a
Typical or calculated values.
Table 4
Specications of Sun MGA 1200
Measurements range Accuracy
Lambda (k) 0.802.00 0.001
CO (vol%) 010% 0.01%
CO
2
(vol%) 020% 0.01%
HC (ppm) 020,000 1
O
2
(vol%) 021% 0.1%
2274 H.S. Yu cesu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 22722278
In Ref. [11], in the 10 compression ratios, the E10 fuel
blend increases the maximum pressure over that of pure
unleaded gasoline. However the ethanol percentage above
10% results in a decrease of the maximum pressure to a
value even lower than E0s pressure. This explains as the
addition of ethanol to gasoline has two eects on the fuel
blend properties:
(1) An increase of the octane number.
(2) A decrease in the heating value.
These eects have opposite results in terms of engine
performance. The rst eect dominates up to an ethanol
percentage of 10%, after which the second eect starts to
take over. In our study, to obtain k = 1 the opening dura-
tion of the injector increases depend on the ethanol per-
centage. Thus the energy amount in the cylinder remains
nearly constant. Therefore in all compression ratios the
better engine performance was obtained than E0 by using
blends up to the 60% ethanol. The relative airfuel ratio
(k) is dened as
k
AFR
act:
AFR
st:
(AFR)
act
is actual airfuel ratio and (AFR)
st.
is stoichiom-
etric airfuel ratios of test fuels.
Ignition timing variations, causing detonation, with
compression ratio at 2000 rpm is seen in Fig. 4. Sound of
detonation could be heard at low speeds, particularly when
increased in advanced timing. At the same time the knock
formations were observed on oscilloscope screen. In the
experiment performed with E40 and E60 ethanol blends
were not observed knock formations with MBT. When
the ignition timing increased above the MBT, the knock
phenomena can be seen with E40 and E60. Higher octane
number of ethanol and blends compared with gasoline
yield better detonation resistance.
Variation of BSFCs at the same experimental conditions
at 3500 and 5000 rpm engine speeds are shown in Fig. 5
and Fig. 6, respectively. With increasing compression ratio
at both engine speeds, the engine torque increased. At the
compression ratio of 13:1 compared with compression
Fig. 1. Schematic view of the test bench.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
8 9 10 11 12 13
Compression Ratio
T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
450
B
S
F
C

(
g
/
k
W
h
)
E0 E10 E20
E40 E60
Fig. 2. Variation of BSFC and engine torque versus compression ratio
(engine speed: 2000 rpm).
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Compression Ratio
M
B
T

(

C
A
,

B
T
D
C
)
E0 E10 E20
E40 E60
Fig. 3. Variation of MBT versus compression ratio (engine speed:
2000 rpm).
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Compression Ratio
I
g
n
i
t
i
o
n

T
i
m
i
n
g

a
t

K
n
o
c
k
i
n
g

L
i
m
i
t
(

C
A
,

B
T
D
C
)
E0
E10
E20
E40
E60
Fig. 4. Variation of detonated ignition timing versus compression ratio
(engine speed: 2000 rpm).
H.S. Yu cesu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 22722278 2275
ratio of 8:1, the engine torque increased with E0 fuel by
14.6% at 3500 rpm and 18.4% at 5000 rpm engine speeds,
respectively. The maximum increase in the engine torque
was obtained with E60 fuel by 19.2% and 21.5% at
3500 rpm and 5000 rpm, respectively. At the compression
ratio of 13:1 compared with compression ratio of 8:1, the
improvement of BSFC with E0 fuel was about 10.4% and
13.6% at 3500 rpm and 5000 rpm engine speeds, respec-
tively. The improvement of BSFC with E60 fuel was about
14.7% and 17% at 3500 rpm and 5000 rpm engine speeds,
respectively.
Variations of MBT with the compression ratio at
3500 rpm and at 5000 rpm are shown in Fig. 7 and in
Fig. 8, respectively. At higher compression ratios, MBT
values were close at all fuel blends compared with
2000 rpm engine speed. It can be seen from the graphics
that MBT is not only related to compression ratio and type
of fuel but also related to the engine speed. Increasing com-
pression ratio increases the temperature of end gas area
which caused detonation. The resistance of the mixture to
the detonation is important in this area. One of the most
important parameters aecting the engine performance is
26
28
30
32
34
36
8 9 10 11 12 13
Compression Ratio
T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
240
290
340
390
440
490
B
S
F
C

(
g
/
k
W
h
)
E0 E10 E20
E40 E60
Fig. 5. Variation of engine torque and BSFC versus compression ratio
(engine speed: 3500 rpm).
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
8 9 10 11 12 13
Compression Ratio
T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
240
280
320
360
400
440
480
B
S
F
C

(
g
/
k
W
h
)
E0 E10 E20
E40 E60
Fig. 6. Variation of engine torque and BSFC versus compression ratio
(engine speed: 5000 rpm).
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Compression Ratio
M
B
T

(

C
A
,

B
T
D
C
)
E0 E10 E20
E40 E60
Fig. 7. Variation of MBT ignition timing with compression ratio (engine
speed: 3500 rpm).
20
24
28
32
36
40
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Compression Ratio
M
B
T

(

C
A
,

B
T
D
C
)
E0 E10 E20
E40 E60
Fig. 8. Variation of MBT ignition timing with compression ratio (engine
speed: 5000 rpm).
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
820
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Compression Ratio
E
x
h
a
u
s
t

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(

C
)
E0 E10 E20
E40 E60
3500 rpm
2000 rpm
5000 rpm
Fig. 9. Variation of exhaust gas temperature versus to compression ratio.
2276 H.S. Yu cesu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 22722278
octane number of the used fuel especially at low engine
speed. As the engine speed increases, the ame surface to
be formed by spark plug reaches rather early to the end
gas area and the probability of the detonation decreases.
However it must be indicated that the octane number
has an important eect on detonation. Because of the
increasing octane number, higher engine torque was
obtained. In the experiment the E60 fuel enabled to
increasing the MBT at 5000 rpm engine speed so the higher
torque was obtained.
Variations of the exhaust gas temperature depending on
the compression ratios are shown in Fig. 9 for 2000, 3500
and 5000 rpm engine speeds. In general, the exhaust gas
temperatures decrease with increasing compression ratio.
Increasing compression ratio increases the pressure and
temperature of the mixture at the end of the compression
stroke and decreases the advanced timing requirement for
the MBT. The amount of energy converted to the useful
work increases. However, use of fuels with lower octane
number like E0, aected the combustion process badly
after the 10:1 compression ratio. This situation was
improved using fuels with higher octane number and
increasing engine speed.
Variations of the CO and HC emissions depending on
the compression ratio are shown in Figs. 10 and 11 at
2000, 3500 and 5000 rpm engine speeds. Especially, consid-
erable decrease was observed when the fuels contained
higher amount of ethanol like E40 and E60. The most sig-
nicant decrease in CO emission was observed with the use
of E40 and E60 fuels at 2000 rpm engine speed. Average
decreasing ratios of CO emission were 11% and 10.8%
for E40 and E60, respectively. In respect of HC emissions,
the highest decreases were observed at 5000 rpm engine
speed as 9.9% and 16.45% for E40 and E60, respectively.
Decreasing ratio of HC emission was found to be higher
than that of CO emissions.
4. Conclusions
In this work the following results were obtained:
With increasing compression ratio up to 11:1, engine
torque increased with E0 fuel, at 2000 rpm engine speed.
Compared with the 8:1 compression ratio, the increment
ratio was about 8%. At the higher compression ratios
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Compression Ratio
C
O

(
v
o
l

%
)
E0 E10 E20
E40 E60
2000 rpm
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Compression Ratio
C
O

(
v
o
l

%
)
3500 rpm
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Compression Ratio
C
O

(
v
o
l

%
)
5000 rpm
Fig. 10. Variation of CO emission versus compression ratio.
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
E0 E10
E20 E40
E60
2000 rpm
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
3500 rpm
20
40
60
80
100
120
Compression Ratio
Compression Ratio
Compression Ratio
H
C

(
p
p
m
)
H
C

(
p
p
m
)
H
C

(
p
p
m
)
5000 rpm
Fig. 11. Variation of HC emission versus compression ratio.
H.S. Yu cesu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 22722278 2277
the torque output did not change noticeably. At 13:1
compression ratio compared with 8:1 compression ratio,
the highest increment was obtained for both fuels E40
and E60 as nearly 14%.
At 11:1 compression ratio compared with 8:1, the BSFC
of E0 fuel reached minimum value and decreased about
10%, after this compression ratio the BSFC increased.
The considerable decrease of BSFC was about 15% with
E40 fuel at 2000 rpm engine speed. The highest improve-
ments of BSFC were obtained with E60 fuel as 14.5%
and 17% at 3500 and 5000 rpm engine speeds,
respectively.
In the experiment related to compression ratio, detona-
tion of the ethanol-containing fuels compared with E0
sometimes happened in higher ignition timing. The
higher rate of the ethanol-containing fuels had an
advantage to reach MBT.
Exhaust gas temperature tended to decrease depending
on compression ratio generally. However from 10:1
compression ratio for fuels with low octane number like
E0, the detonation increases. Due to the poor combus-
tion, the exhaust gas temperature increases. This situa-
tion is prevented using fuel with high octane and
increasing engine speed.
The fuels containing high ratios of ethanol; E40 and E60
had important eects on the reduction exhaust emis-
sions. The maximum decrease was obtained with E40
and E60 fuels at 2000 rpm engine speed. The average
decreases were found to be 11% and 10.8% with E40
and E60, respectively. The better decrease was obtained
with HC compared with CO. The maximum decrease in
HC emission was obtained using E60 as average of
16.45% at 5000 rpm engine speeds.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by Gazi University Scientic
Research Foundation in frame of the project code of
TEF.07./2002-27. The fuel tests were performed by Petro-
leum Research Center of METU. As researchers, we thank
Scientic Research Foundation of Gazi University and
Petroleum Research Center of METU.
References
[1] R.L. Bechtold, Alternative Fuels Guidebook, Society of Automotive
Engineers Inc., 1997.
[2] L.M. Das, Y.V.R. Reddy, Evaluation of alternative fuels for internal
combustion engine, in: First Trabzon International Energy and
Environment Symposium, July 2931, 1996, pp. 951958.
[3] F. Schafer, R.v. Basshuysen, Reduced Emissions and Fuel Consump-
tion in Automobile Engines, Springer-Verlag Wien and Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc., Altenburg, 1995.
[4] W. Hsieh, R. Chen, T. Wu, T. Lin, Engine performance and pollutant
emission of an si engine using ethanolgasoline blended fuels,
Atmospheric Environment 36 (3) (2002) 403410.
[5] D.A. Guerrieri, P.J. Carey, V. Rao, Investigation into the Vehicle
Exhaust Emissions of High Percentage Ethanol Blends, SAE Paper,
No. 950777, 1995, pp. 8595.
[6] S.M. Kisenyi, C.A. Savage, A.C. Simmonds, The Impact of Oxygen-
ates on Exhaust Emissions of Six European Cars, SAE Paper, No.
940929, 1994, pp. 241254.
[7] A.B. Taylor, D.P. Moran, A.J. Bell, N.G. Hodgson, I.S. Myburgh,
J.J. Botha, Gasoline/Alcohol Blends: Exhaust Emissions, Perfor-
mance and Burn-Rate in a Multi-Valve Production Engine, SAE
Paper, No. 961988, 1996, pp. 143160.
[8] J.S. Cowart, W.E. Boruta, J.D. Dalton, R.F. Dona, F.L. Rivard II,
R.S. Furby, J.A. Piontkowski, R.E. Seiter, R.M. Takai, Powertrain
Development of the 1996 Ford Flexible Fuel Taurus, SAE Paper, No.
952751, 1995, pp. 115128.
[9] M.A.S. Al-Baghdadi, Performance study of a four-stroke spark
ignition engine working with both of hydrogen and ethyl alcohol as
supplementary fuel, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 25
(10) (2000) 10051009.
[10] M. Al-Hasan, Eect of ethanolunleaded gasoline blends on engine
performance and exhaust emission, Energy Conversion and Manage-
ment 44 (2003) 15471561.
[11] A.A. Abdel-Rahman, M.M. Osman, Experimental investigation on
varying the compression ratio of SI engine working under dierent
ethanolgasoline fuel blends, International Journal of Energy
Research 21 (1) (1997) 3140.
[12] C.W. Wu, R.H. Chen, J.Y. Pu, T.H. Lin, The inuence of airfuel
ratio on engine performance and pollutant emission of an SI engine
using ethanolgasoline blended fuels, Atmospheric Environment 38
(40) (2004) 70937100.
2278 H.S. Yu cesu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 22722278