Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 1261–1269

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Effect of injection timing on the exhaust emissions of a diesel engine

using diesel–methanol blends
Cenk Sayin a, Murat Ilhan b, Mustafa Canakci c, d, *, Metin Gumus a
a
Department of Mechanical Education, Marmara University, 34722 Istanbul, Turkiye
b
Raytheon Training International GmbH, GM Academy, 34843 Istanbul, Turkiye
c
Department of Mechanical Education, Kocaeli University, 41380 Kocaeli, Turkiye
d
Alternative Fuels R&D Center, Kocaeli University, 41040 Kocaeli, Turkiye

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

Article history: Environmental concerns and limited resource of petroleum fuels have caused interests in the develop-
Received 24 March 2008 ment of alternative fuels for internal combustion (IC) engines. For diesel engines, alcohols are receiving
Accepted 4 October 2008 increasing attention because they are oxygenated and renewable fuels. Therefore, in this study, the effect
Available online 20 November 2008
of injection timing on the exhaust emissions of a single cylinder, naturally aspirated, four-stroke, direct
injection diesel engine has been experimentally investigated by using methanol-blended diesel fuel from
Keywords:
0% to 15% with an increment of 5%. The tests were conducted for three different injection timings (15 ,
Diesel engine
20 and 25  CA BTDC) at four different engine loads (5 Nm, 10 Nm, 15 Nm, 20 Nm) at 2200 rpm. The
Methanol
Emissions experimental test results showed that Bsfc, NOx and CO2 emissions increased as BTE, smoke opacity, CO
Injection timing and UHC emissions decreased with increasing amount of methanol in the fuel mixture. When compared
the results to those of original injection timing, NOx and CO2 emissions decreased, smoke opacity, UHC
and CO emissions increased for the retarded injection timing (15  CA BTDC). On the other hand, with the
advanced injection timing (25  CA BTDC), decreasing smoke opacity, UHC and CO emissions diminished,
and NOx and CO2 emissions boosted at all test conditions. In terms of Bsfc and BTE, retarded and
advanced injection timings gave negative results for all fuel blends in all engine loads.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction considerations have led to investigations on the renewable fuels

Compression ignition (CI) or diesel engines are widely used for
transportation, automotive, agricultural applications and industrial
sectors because of their high fuel conversion efficiencies and easy
operation. The existing CI engines operate with conventional diesel
fuel derived from crude oil. It is well known that the world petro-
leum resources are limited and the production of crude oil is
becoming more difficult and expensive. On the other hand, the
pollutants including unburned hydrocarbons (UHCs), carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and smoke opacity emis-
sions have been regulated by the laws in many countries. Recently,
changing the engine operating parameters such as valve timing,
injection timing, and atomization ratio has been carried out in
many studies on the IC engines aiming to reduce the emissions. At
the same time, depletion of fossil fuels and environmental
* Corresponding author. Department of Mechanical Education, Kocaeli University,
41380 Kocaeli, Turkiye. Tel.: þ90 262 3032285; fax: þ90 262 3032203.
E-mail addresses: canakci@kocaeli.edu.tr, mustafacanakci@hotmail.com
(M. Canakci).
such as methanol, ethanol, hydrogen, and biodiesel [1–4].
Methanol is derived from any material that can be decomposed
into CO (or CO2) and hydrogen. In this regard methanol can be
produced from non-petroleum sources. The primary feedstock for
methanol production is natural gas, lignite coal and renewable
resources such as wood, agricultural biomass materials, waste
biomass and municipal wastes [5–7]. However, it should be noted
that, currently methanol is largely produced from non-renewable
natural gas.
The specification of diesel fuel and methanol (also used in this
study) is shown in Table 1. Methanol (CH3OH) is a pure substance.
However, diesel fuel is a complex mixture of a large number of
hydrocarbons (such as C3–C25 hydrocarbons). For this reason, its
fuel properties can change depending on the proportion of
hydrocarbon types used in the fuel mixture. Methanol contains an
oxygen atom so that it is accepted as a partially oxidized hydro-
carbon. Methanol has lower energy content than diesel fuel.
Therefore, more fuel is needed to obtain same amount of power
with that of diesel-fueled engine. Its high stoichiometric fuel/air
ratio, high oxygen content and high H/C ratio may be beneficial to
improve the combustion and to reduce the soot and smoke.

0960-1481/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.10.010
1262 C. Sayin et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 1261–1269

Nomencalture CO2 Carbon dioxide

DI Direct injection
ATDC After top dead center LHV Lower heating value
Bsfc Brake specific fuel consumption NOx Nitrogen oxides
BTDC Before top dead center ppm Particulate per million
BTE Brake thermal efficiency rpm Revolution per minute
CA Crank angle TDC Top dead center
CI Compression ignition UHC Unburned hydrocarbon.
CO Carbon monoxide

Methanol has higher latent heat of vaporization than diesel fuel so
that it extracts more heat as it vaporizes. Therefore, it can lead to
cooling effect on the cylinder charge. As a result of the cooling
effect, the emissions of nitrogen oxides can be decreased. Since
methanol has very low viscosity compared to diesel fuel, it can be
easily injected, atomized and mixed with the air introduced into
the cylinder. Methanol has poor ignition behavior due to its low
cetane number, high latent heat of vaporization and high ignition
temperature. Therefore, it can increase ignition delay. The auto-
ignition temperature of methanol is higher than that of diesel fuel,
which makes it safer for transportation and storage. On the other
hand, methanol has much lower flash point than that of diesel fuel;
this is a disadvantage for safety. At the same time, a lubricant
additive should be added to improve its lubrication [8–11].
The possible benefits and shortcomings of methanol as a fuel for
CI engines are summarized above. Methanol can be used in CI
engines as pure or blended with conventional diesel fuel. Problems
concerning the use of methanol in diesel engines are briefly
described below. The simplest method to use methanol in CI
engines is to blend it with diesel fuel. The most important problem
encountered in this case is phase separation. Adding a mixer inside
the fuel tank can prevent this problem. Moreover, an ignition
improver like diethyl ether can be added into the blended fuel to
compensate the cetane number [12,13].
Since using methanol-blended diesel fuel can reduce the air
pollution and depletion of petroleum fuels simultaneously, many
researchers have studied the influence of this alternative fuel on
the exhaust emissions of IC engines. Huang et al. [14], for instance,
used various methanol–diesel fuel blend rates in a diesel engine.
The results indicated that the increase of methanol content in the
blend decreased smoke opacity, CO and UHC emissions, but
increased NOx emissions.
The effects of methanol–diesel blends on CI engine emissions
were investigated by Ilhan [15]. In this study, methanol-blended
diesel fuels were prepared using 99% pure methanol with the
volumetric ratios of 0–15%. The results demonstrated that NOx and
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increased as CO and UHC emissions
decreased with increasing amount of methanol in the fuel mixture.
Chao et al. [3] investigated the effect of methanol containing
additive (MCA) on the regulated and unregulated emissions from
a diesel engine. The engine was tested on a series of diesel fuels
blended with five additive levels (0%, 5%, 8%, 10% and 15% of MCA by
volume). Results showed that MCA addition slightly decreased
particulate matter (PM) and NOx emissions but generally increased
both UHC and CO emissions.
In another study [16], a stabilized diesel–methanol blend was
developed, and combustion characteristics and heat release anal-
ysis were carried out in a CI engine. According to the experimental
results, increasing the methanol mass fraction in the diesel–
methanol blends resulted in an increase in the heat release rate at
the premixed burning phase and shortened the combustion dura-
tion of the diffusive burning phase.
For a diesel engine, fuel injection timing is a major parameter
that affects the combustion and exhaust emissions. The state of air
into which the fuel injected changes as the injection timing is
varied, and thus ignition delay will vary. If injection starts earlier,
the initial air temperature and pressure will be lower, so that the
ignition delay will increase. If injection starts later (when piston is
closer to TDC), the temperature and pressure will be slightly higher,
a decrease in ignition delay will proceed. Hence, injection timing
variation has a strong effect on the engine performance and
exhaust emissions, especially on the brake specific fuel consump-
tion (Bsfc), brake thermal efficiency (BTE) and NOx emissions,
because of changing maximum pressure and temperature in the
cylinder [17,18].
Several studies have showed that the injection timing affects the
level of exhaust emissions of CI engines. Sayin et al. [19] examined
the influence of injection timing on the exhaust emission of a single
cylinder diesel engine when using ethanol-blended diesel fuel at
five different injection timings. The experimental test results
showed that NOx and CO2 emissions increased as CO and UHC
emissions decreased with increasing amount of ethanol in the fuel
mixture. When compared the test results to those of original (ORG)
injection timing, NOx and CO2 emissions increased, and UHC and
CO emissions decreased at the retarded injection timings. On the
other hand, with the advanced injection timings, UHC and CO

Table 1 Table 2
Properties of the fuels used in the tests [39,40]. Technical specifications of the test engine [41].

Methanol Euro-diesel Engine type Lombardini 6 LD 400

Formula CH3OH C12H26–C14H30 Cylinder number 1
Molecular weight (kg/kmol) 32 170–198 Cylinder bore 86 mm
Boiling temperature ( C) 64.7 190–280 Stroke 68 mm
Density (g/cm3, at 20  C) 0.79 0.82–0.86 Total cylinder volume 395 cm3
Flash point ( C) 11 52 Total weight 160 kg
Autoignition temperature ( C) 470 300–340 Injector opening pressure 200 bar
Lower heating value (MJ/kg) 20.27 42.74 Number of nozzle hole 4
Cetane number 3–5 55 Original injection timing 20  CA BTDC
Viscosity (mPas at 298.15 K) 0.59 3.35 Compression ratio 18:1
Stoichiometric fuel–air ratio 0.154 0.069 Maximum torque 18 Nm at 2200 rpm
Heat of vaporization (MJ/kg) 1.11 0.270 Maximum power 8 kW at 2000 rpm
 C. Sayin et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 1261–1269 1263

Table 3 engine performance has not been clearly studied when using
The sensitivities and the range of the test devices, and the uncertainties in the methanol-blended diesel fuel in the CI engines. Therefore, in this
calculated results.
study, both the effects of injection timing and methanol-blended
Analyzer Model and type Range Sensitivities diesel fuel on the engine performance and exhaust emissions were
CO analyzer Sun 1500 0–10% 0.1% experimentally investigated using a single cylinder direct injection
CO2 analyzer Sun 1500 0–15% 0.1% (DI) diesel engine.
UHC analyzer Opus 40 0–400 ppm 1 ppm
NOx analyzer Kane–May Quintox 0–500 ppm 1 ppm
Smoke meter Bilsa 2100 0–100% 0.01% 2. Experimental procedure and equipment
Calculated results Uncertainty
The experiments were carried out on a single cylinder, naturally
Power Max.  2.55%
Bsfc Max.  2.60%
aspirated, four-stroke and DI diesel engine. Details of the engine
BTE Max.  2.60% specification are shown in Table 2. A Cussons-P8160 type single
cylinder test bed, which is equipped with an instrument cabinet
(column mounted), fitted the torque gauge, electrical tachometer
and switches for load remote control, and measurement instru-
emissions diminished, and NOx and CO2 emissions boosted at all ments were used in the experiments. The dynamometer was a DC
test fuels. machine rated at 380 V, 10 kW. An inductive pickup speed sensor
Parlak et al. [20] studied the influence of injection timing on the was also used to measure the engine speed. Engine oil temperature,
NOx emissions and Bsfc of a low heat rejection (LHR) indirect coolant temperature, exhaust temperature, and inlet air tempera-
injection diesel engine using diesel fuel. The tests were conducted ture were recorded using K type thermocouples with an accuracy of
with variable loads at the engine speeds of 1000 rpm, 1400 rpm, 1  C. Fuel consumption was measured by using calibrated burette
1800 rpm and 2000 rpm, and the static injection timing of 38 , 36 , with an accuracy of 0.1% and a stopwatch with an accuracy of 0.5% s.
34 and 32 crank angle (CA) before top dead center (BTDC). After The exhaust emissions (smoke opacity, CO, UHC, NOx and CO2) were
the load tests were conducted for original diesel engine, same tests measured using four different gas analyzers (Bilsa 2100, Opus 40,
order was adopted for LHR engine. When the LHR engine was Sun 1500, and Kane–May Quintox). These analyzers were calibrated
operated with the injection timing of 38  CA BTDC, which was the before experiments. Specifications of the analyzers and the uncer-
optimum value of the original engine, it showed that NOx emission tainties in the calculated results are shown in Table 3.
increased about 15%. However, when the injection timing was Two different fuels were used during the study. Euro-diesel fuel
retarded to 34  CA BTDC in the LHR case, decreases in the exhaust was obtained from TUPRAS Petroleum Corporation. Methanol with
emissions and Bsfc were observed about 40% and 6%, respectively, a purity of 99% was purchased from a commercial supplier. The fuel
compared to those of the original case. properties are shown in Table 1. The euro-diesel was blended with
Nwafor [21] examined the effect of advanced injection timing on methanol to obtain four different fuel blends ranging from 0% to
the engine performance and exhaust emissions of natural gas used 15% with an increment of 5%. The fuels were M0, M5, M10 and M15,
as a primary fuel in a dual fuel CI engine. The test engine had the indicating the content of methanol in different volume ratios (i.e.
original injection timing of 30  CA BTDC. The injection was M5 contains 5% methanol and 95% diesel fuel in volume). The fuel
advanced by 3.5  CA (i.e. 33.5  CA BTDC). The results indicated that blends were prepared just before starting the experiments to
dual fuel combustion produced larger percentage of UHC emissions ensure that the fuel mixture is homogeneous. A mixer was also
than those of pure diesel fuel. Significant reductions in CO and CO2 mounted in the fuel tank to prevent phase separation. The exper-
emissions were obtained when running the engine with the imental setup is shown in Fig. 1.
advanced injection timing. On the other hand, advanced injection The original injection timing of the test engine is 20  CA BTDC.
timing caused a slight increase in Bsfc and decrease in BTE. Thickness of the advance shim, located in the connection place
As mentioned above, it can be seen that methanol-blended between the engine and fuel pump, is 0.25 mm and adding one
diesel fuel can effectively reduce the pollutant emissions. However, shim advances the injection timing 5  CA. Experiments were
the influence of injection timing on the exhaust emissions and carried out in three different injection timings (15 , 20 and 25  CA

Fig. 1. The experimental setup.

1264 C. Sayin et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 1261–1269

300 0.8
M0
M5
Exhaust gas temperature (oC)

250 M 10
M15 M0
M5
0.6 M 10
200 M15

CO (g/kWh)
150 0.4

100
0.2
50

0 0
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Engine load (Nm) Engine load (Nm)

Fig. 2. Exhaust gas temperatures at different engine loads (ORG injection timing). Fig. 4. CO emission results at different engine loads (ORG injection timing).

BTDC) by removing or adding one advance shim. All test runs were
conducted on the test-bench. The engine was run at constant speed
(2200 rpm) and four different loads (5 Nm, 10 Nm, 15 Nm and
20 Nm) for each injection timing. The values of engine oil
temperature, speed, torque, exhaust temperature and pollutants
such as smoke opacity, CO, UHC, NOx and CO2 were recorded during
the experiments. Before each experiment, the engine was regulated
according to the catalog values. All data were collected after the
engine stabilized. Each test was repeated three times. The values
given in this study are the average value of these three results.
3. Results and discussion
Diesel engine emissions can be improved by adding methanol to
diesel fuel. However, to reach the emission reduction, it may
require some modification on the engine. The injection timing has
a significant effect on the exhaust emissions of a CI engine.
Therefore, the effects of injection timing and methanol-blended
diesel fuel on the exhaust emissions of a single cylinder DI diesel
engine were experimentally investigated. Since the exhaust gas
temperature is an indicator of the combustion occurring in the
cylinder, the exhaust gas temperatures obtained at the different
engine loads and injection timings were recorded and shown in
Figs. 2 and 3, respectively.
3.1. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions
CO emission is poisonous and must be restricted. It is produced
either directly or indirectly by combustion of fuels. In the ideal
combustion process, carbon (C) and oxygen (O2) combine to
produce CO2. Incomplete combustion of carbon leads to CO
formation. The formation of CO takes place when the oxygen
presents during combustion is insufficient to form CO2 [7,17].
CO emission results are presented in Figs. 4 and 5 for different
engine loads and injection timings at 20 Nm load, respectively. The
results showed that when the methanol ratio in the mixture
increased, the CO concentrations in the exhaust decreased. This was
the result of improving combustion process since oxygen content in
the methanol caused better combustion. For ORG injection timing,
minimum CO was found as 0.14 g/kWh with the M15; 0.17 g/kWh
with the M10; 0.19 g/kWh with the M5; and 0.46 g/kWh with the
M0 at maximum load (20 Nm). CO emission reduced steadily when
the engine load increased in the engine. When the engine load
increased, combustion temperature increased as shown in Fig. 2.
Therefore, CO emissions started to decrease [22]. The results
obtained in this study confirmed this statement. At ORG injection
timing, while CO emission was measured as 0.19 g/kWh with M5 at
20 Nm load, it was 0.60 g/kWh at 5 Nm. Fig. 5 shows CO emission
results for different methanol-blended diesel fuels and injection
timings at 20 Nm constant load. When the injection timing
advanced, the level of CO emission decreased. Advancing the
injection timing 5  CA (from 20 to 25  CA BTDC) caused the CO
emission reduction by 17.70% for M10 at 20 Nm load. The advanced
injection timing produced higher cylinder temperature as seen in
Fig. 3 and increased oxidation process between carbon and oxygen
molecules. This caused reduction in CO emissions [23]. However,
retarding the injection timing 5  CA (from 20 to 15  CA BTDC)

300
M0
M5 0.8
M 10
Exhaust gas temperature (oC)

M0
250 M15 M5
M 10
M15
0.6
200
CO (g/kWh)

150
0.4

100

0.2
50

0 0
15 20 25 15 20 25
Injection timing (CA), BTDC Injection timing (CA), BTDC

Fig. 3. Exhaust gas temperatures at different injection timings and 20 Nm load. Fig. 5. CO emission results at different injection timings and 20 Nm load.
 C. Sayin et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 1261–1269 1265

0.8 60

M0 M0
M5 M5
50 M 10
M 10
0.6 M15 M15

40
UHC (g/kWh)

CO2 (g/kWh)
0.4 30

20
0.2
10

0 0
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Engine load (Nm) Engine load (Nm)
Fig. 6. UHC emission results at different loads (ORG injection timing). Fig. 8. CO2 emission results at different loads (ORG injection timing).

caused 29.41% increase in the CO emission under the same test
condition mentioned above.
3.2. Unburned hydrocarbon (UHC) emissions
UHC emissions consist of fuel that is incompletely burned. The
term UHC means organic compounds in the gaseous state; solid
hydrocarbons are part of the particulate matter. Typically, UHCs
cause serious problems at light loads in CI engines. At light loads,
the fuel is less apt to impinge on surfaces; but, because of poor fuel
distribution, large amounts of excess air and low exhaust temper-
ature, lean fuel–air mixture regions may survive to escape into the
exhaust [24–26].
The influence of different blends on UHC emission can be clearly
seen in Fig. 6. When the methanol content increased in the fuel
blend, UHC emission decreased for all engine loads. UHC concen-
trations diminished moderately with increasing load that was in
the same trend with CO. The experimental results indicated that
minimum UHC emissions were found as 0.20 g/kWh, 0.25 g/kWh,
0.30 g/kWh and 0.35 g/kWh for M15, M10, M5 and M0, respec-
tively, at the 20 Nm load and 2200 rpm, which were obtained
around the speed of maximum torque level of the engine. When
methanol was added to the diesel fuel, it provided more oxygen for
the combustion process and improved the combustion. In addition,
methanol molecules are polar, which cannot be absorbed easily by
non-polar molecule lubrication oil layer; and therefore methanol
can lower the possibility of UHC emission production [2,27].
Fig. 7 shows the variations of the UHC with different methanol-
blended diesel fuels for different injection timings at 20 Nm
constant load. Advancing the injection timing reduced UHC emis-
sions. When the injection timing was advanced from 20 to 25  CA
BTDC, the emission of UHC decreased by 20.12% for M10 at the
20 Nm load. Advancing the injection timing causes earlier start of
combustion relative to the TDC. Because of this, the cylinder charge,
being compressed as the piston moves to the TDC, had relatively
higher temperatures, and thus lowered the UHC emissions [27,28].
However, for the same test condition, when the injection timing
was retarded 5  CA (from 20 to 15  CA BTDC), the UHC increased
by 19.23%. The exhaust gas temperatures are shown in Figs. 2 and 3
to understand the variations of the UHC emissions for different
engine load and injection timing.
3.3. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
CO2 is a normal product of combustion. Ideally, combustion of
a hydrocarbon fuel should produce only CO2 and water (H2O). Fig. 8
describes the effect of using methanol-blended diesel fuels on CO2
emission. As seen in Figs. 4 and 6 for different engine loads, when
the methanol amount increased in the fuel mixture, the CO and
UHC concentration in the exhaust decreased. The CO2 concentra-
tions behaved differently when compared with the CO concentra-
tions because of improving combustion as a result of oxygen
content in the methanol. Maximum CO2 was observed to be
39.15 g/kWh, 30.83 g/kWh, 27.70 g/kWh and 23.72 g/kWh at M15,

60
0.8 M0
M5
M0 50
M 10
M5 M15
M 10
0.6 M15 40
CO2 (g/kWh)
UHC (g/kWh)

30
0.4

20

0.2
10

0 0
15 20 25 15 20 25
Injection timing (CA), BTDC Injection timing (CA), BTDC

Fig. 7. UHC emission results at different injection timings and 20 Nm load. Fig. 9. CO2 emission results at different injection timings and 20 Nm load.
1266 C. Sayin et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 1261–1269

3 100
M0 M0
M5 M5
2.5 M10 M10
M15 80 M15

Smoke opacity ( )
2
NOx(g/kWh)

60
1.5

40
1

20
0.5

0 0
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Engine load (Nm) Engine load (Nm)

Fig. 10. NOx emission results at different loads (ORG injection timing). Fig. 12. Smoke opacity results at different loads (ORG injection timing).

M10, M5 and M0 for the 20 Nm engine load and ORG injection
timing. CO2 emissions increased with the advancing injection
timing, as shown in Fig. 9, for the all fuel mixtures. When the
injection timing was changed from 20 to 25  CA BTDC, the level of
CO2 emission increased by 31.55% for M5 at the 20 Nm constant
load. This increase may be associated with the increase in the fuel
consumption.
3.4. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions
One of the most critical emissions from CI engines is NOx
emissions. The oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust emissions contain
nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The formation of NOx
is highly dependent on the in-cylinder temperature, oxygen
concentration and residence time for the reaction to take place [29–
31]. The changes on the NOx emissions at different engine load are
shown in Fig. 10. NOx concentration generally increased with
increasing engine load. The experimental results indicated that NOx
values of M15 were higher than the others. Maximum NOx was
observed to be 1.69 g/kWh with M15 and 1.54 g/kWh, 1.23 g/kWh
and 1.06 g/kWh with M10, M5 and M0, respectively, at the
maximum engine load (20 Nm).
Fig. 11 indicates the variations of NOx emissions for different
methanol-blended diesel fuels under different injection timing at
the 20 Nm constant load. When the injection timing was retarded,
some decrease was observed in the NOx emissions for all the fuel
mixtures. When the injection timing was retarded 5  CA compared
to ORG injection timing, NOx emissions decreased by 28.12% for M5.
Retarding the injection timing decreases the peak cylinder pressure
because more fuel burns after TDC. Lower peak cylinder pressures
result in lower peak temperatures. As a consequence, the NOx
concentration starts to diminish [32]. The obtained exhaust gas
temperatures, shown in Figs. 2 and 3, confirmed this statement.
Methanol contains 34% oxygen and its cetane number is lower
than diesel fuel, which increases peak temperature in the cylinder.
On the other hand, the lower heating value (LHV) of methanol is
nearly two times lower than diesel fuel and latent heat of vapor-
ization of methanol is about four times greater than diesel fuel,
which decreases the peak temperature in the cylinder [17,33]. As
shown in Fig. 2, the exhaust temperature increased with increasing
methanol ratio in the fuel mixture. It is clear from the Fig. 2, cetane
number and oxygen content are more effective than LHV and latent
heat of vaporization with regard to increasing peak temperature in
the cylinder. Therefore, the concentration of NOx emission
increased for the engine loads as the methanol content increased in
the blended fuel.
3.5. Smoke opacities
The particulate matter (PM) is essentially composed of soot,
though some hydrocarbons, generally referred to as a soluble
organic fraction (SOF) of the particulate emissions, are also adsor-
bed on the particle surface or simply emitted as liquid droplets.
Among the particulate matter components, soot is recognized as

3 100
M0
M5
M0 M10
2.5 M5 M15
M 10 80
M15
Smoke opacity ( )

2
NOx (g/kWh)

60

1.5
40
1

20
0.5

0 0
15 20 25 15 20 25
Injection timing (CA), BTDC Injection timing (CA), BTDC

Fig. 11. NOx emission results at different injection timings and 20 Nm load. Fig. 13. Smoke opacity results at different injection timings and 20 Nm load.
 C. Sayin et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 1261–1269 1267

350 50
M0
M0 M5
300 M5 M 10
M 10 40 M15
M15
250
Bsfc (g/kWh)

30

BTE ( )
200

150 20

100
10
50

0
0
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Engine load (Nm) Engine load (Nm)

Fig. 14. Bsfc results at different loads (ORG injection timing). Fig. 16. BTE results at different loads (ORG injection timing).

the main substance which is responsible for the smoke opacity. which oxidation of the soot particles occur [36]. When the injection
Therefore, opacimeters, which convert the opacity into soot timing was advanced 5  CA compared to ORG injection timing,
concentration, are widely used for PM measurements. Smoke smoke opacity decreased by 5.31% for M0 at the 20 Nm load.
opacity formation occurs at the extreme air deficiency. The air or
oxygen deficiency is locally present inside diesel engines. It
3.6. Brake specific fuel consumption (Bsfc)
increases as the air/fuel ratio decreases. Soot is produced by oxygen
deficient thermal cracking of long-chain molecules [24,34]. Smoke
The effects of methanol–diesel fuel blends and injection timings
opacity results were presented in Figs. 12 and 13 for different
on the Bsfc are shown in Figs. 14 and 15 for different engine load
engine loads and injection timings, respectively. The results
and injection timing, respectively. The results showed that
showed that the smoke opacity level was decreased with the
increasing methanol ratio in the fuel blend caused to increase in the
addition of methanol. Minimum smoke opacity was found as 62%
Bsfc. This behavior is attributed to LHV per unit mass of the
with the M15, 67% with the M10, 69% with the M5, and 71% with
methanol, which is noticeably lower than that of the diesel fuel
the M0 at minimum load (5 Nm) at ORG injection timing. The
[37]. Therefore, the amount of fuel introduced into the engine
presence of atomic bound oxygen in methanol satisfies positive
cylinder for a desired fuel energy input has to be greater with the
chemical control over soot formation. The tendency to generate
methanol. Minimum Bsfc was acquired as 117 g/kWh with the M0;
smoke opacity by the fuel dense region inside a diesel diffusion
121 g/kWh with the M5; 123 g/kWh with the M10; and 152 g/kWh
flame sheath is reduced, so that soot free spray combustion could
with the M15 for ORG injection timing at 20 Nm load. Bsfc
be realized [35].
decreased about 1.9 times as the engine load increased from 5 Nm
The formation of smoke is strongly dependent on the engine
to 20 Nm constant load. This decrease in Bsfc could be explained by
load. As the load increases, more fuel is injected, and this increases
the fact that; as the engine load increases, of the rate of increasing
the formation of smoke [36]. The results obtained in this study
brake power is much more than that of the fuel consumption.
support this statement. At ORG injection timing, while smoke
Fig. 15 indicates the variations of Bsfc for different methanol-
opacity was measured as 81% with M15 at 20 Nm load; it was found
blended diesel fuels under different injection timing at 20 Nm
as 62% at 5 Nm.
constant load. When the injection timing was retarded 5  CA BTDC
Advancing the injection timing also reduced the smoke emis-
compared to ORG injection timing, Bsfc increased by 30.26% for M15.
sions. As presented in Fig. 3, the exhaust temperature increased
With advancing injection timing, the ignition delay will be longer
with advancing injection timing. The earlier injection leads to
and speed of the flame will be shorter. This cause reduction of
higher temperatures during the expansion stroke, and more time in

50
350
M0
M5
300 M0 M 10
M5 40 M15
M 10
250 M15
Bsfc (g/kWh)

30
BTE ( )

200

150 20

100
10
50

0 0
15 20 25 15 20 25
Injection timing (CA), BTDC Injection timing (CA), BTDC

Fig. 15. Bsfc results at different injection timings and 20 Nm load. Fig. 17. BTE results at different injection timings and 20 Nm load.
1268 C. Sayin et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 1261–1269
maximum pressure and engine output power. Thus, fuel consump-
tion per output power will increase. On the other hand, retarding
injection timing means later combustion, and therefore pressure
rises only when the cylinder volume is expanding rapidly and results
a reduced effective pressure to do work [38]. As a result, minimum
Bsfc was obtained at ORG injection timing for all the fuel blends.
3.7. Brake thermal efficiency (BTE)
The maximum BTE was recorded with M0 for all the engine
loads. BTE indicates the ability of the combustion system to accept
the experimental fuel, and provides comparable means of assessing
how efficient the energy in the fuel was converted to mechanical
output. BTE results are presented in Figs. 16 and 17 for different
engine loads and injection timings, respectively. The M0 fuel at
20 Nm with ORG injection timing produced the highest BTE as
43.42%. The higher BTE of M0 operation can be attributed to its LHV.
Fig. 17 shows the variations of the BTE with different methanol-
blended diesel fuels for different injection timings at 20 Nm
constant load. The best results in terms of BTE were obtained at ORG
injection timing. Retarded or advanced injection timing diminished
BTE values. For example, when the injection timing was retarded
and advanced 5  CA compared to ORG injection timing, BTE
decreased by 29.02% and 19.45% for M10 at 20 Nm load, respectively.
4. Conclusion
In this study, the performance and exhaust emissions of a single
cylinder, DI diesel engine were measured when methanol-blended
diesel fuel was used at the different engine loads and injection
timings. The results showed that the injection timing and methanol
content play an important role in the combustion process. From the
current study, the following conclusions can be drawn.
The results indicated that NOx emissions slightly increased;
smoke opacity, CO and UHC emissions decreased dramatically by
methanol addition to the fuel blend; and CO2 emissions increased
because of the improved combustion. By using methanol-blended
diesel fuels, smoke opacity, CO and UHC emissions reduced by 5–
22%, 33–52% and 26–50%, while CO2 and NOx emissions increased
by 14–68% and 22–69%, respectively, depending on the engine
running conditions. Increasing the amount of methanol in the fuel
mixture produced higher peak temperature in the cylinder. This
effect increased NOx emissions.
In terms of injection timing, the test results demonstrated that;
with advancing the injection timing, smoke opacity, CO and UHC
emissions decreased while NOx and CO2 emissions increased.
When the injection timing was advanced, CO emission decreased
because of improving reaction between fuel and oxygen. This
caused increase in the CO2 emissions. Advancing the injection
timing caused an earlier start of combustion relative to the TDC.
Because of this, the cylinder charge, being compressed as the piston
moves to the TDC, had relatively higher temperatures and thus,
lowered the UHC emissions and increased NOx emissions.
Advancing the injection timing at 20 Nm load gave the best results
for the UHC and CO emissions. At these conditions, CO and
unburned HC emissions were found to be 0.11 g/kWh and 0.16 g/
kWh, respectively, for M15. The best results in terms of smoke
opacity were obtained to be 56% at the advanced injection timing at
5 Nm load. On the other hand, retarding the injection timing at
10 Nm load presented the minimum values for NOx and CO2
emissions. At this working condition, NOx and CO2 emissions were
found as 0.70 g/kWh and 24.68 g/kWh, respectively.
Increasing the methanol ratio in the fuel blend caused increase
in the Bsfc and decrease in BTE by about 38% and 42%, respectively.
This is most likely result of LHV of the methanol fuel, which is
distinctly lower than that of the diesel fuel. The ORG ignition timing
gave the best results for Bsfc and BTE compared to the other
injection timings.
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by the grant from Scientific Research
Project Commission of Marmara University (Project BSE-075/
131102).
References
[1] Sayin C, Kilicaslan I, Canakci M, Ozsezen N. An experimental study of the effect
of octane number higher than engine requirement on the engine performance
and emissions. Applied Thermal Engineering 2005;25:1315–24.
[2] Asfar KR, Hamed H. Combustion of fuel blends. Energy Conversion and
Management 1998;39:1081–93.
[3] Chao MR, Lin CT, Chao HR, Chang FH, Chen CB. Effects of methanol-containing
additive on emission characteristics from a heavy-duty diesel engine. The
Science of the Total Environment 2001;279:167–79.
[4] Yüksel F, Yüksel B. The use of ethanol–gasoline blends as a fuel in a SI engine.
Renewable Energy 2004;29:1181–91.
[5] Thring RH. Alternative fuels for spark ignition engines. SAE paper 831685.
[6] Chmielniak T, Sciazko M. Co-classification of biomass and coal for methanol
synthesis. Applied Energy 2003;74:393–403.
[7] Sayin C, Uslu K. Influence of advanced injection timing on the performance
and emissions of CI engine fueled with ethanol-blended diesel fuel. Interna-
tional Journal of Energy Research 2008;32:1006–15.
[8] Adelman H. Alcohols in diesel engines. SAE paper 790956.
[9] Wagner TO, Gray DS, Zarah BY, Kozinski AA. Practically of alcohols as motor
fuel. SAE paper 790429.
[10] Kowalecwicz A. Methanol as a fuel for spark ignition engines: a review and
analysis. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D:
Journal of Automobile Engineering 1993;207:43–52.
[11] Caro PS, Mouloungui Z, Vaitilingom G, Berge JC. Interest of combining an
additive with diesel–ethanol blends for use in diesel engine. Fuel
2001;80:565–74.
[12] Murayama T, Miyamoto N, Yamada T, Kawashima JI, Otiw K. A method to
improve the solubility and combustion characteristics of alcohol–diesel
blends. SAE paper 821113.
[13] Bayraktar H. An experimental study on the performance parameters of an
experimental CI engine fueled with diesel–methanol–dodecanol blends. Fuel
2008;87:158–64.
[14] Huang ZH, Lu HB, Jiang DM, Zhang JQ, Wang XB. Engine performance and
emissions of a compression ignition engine operating on the diesel–methanol
blends. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal
of Automobile Engineering 2004;218:435–47.
[15] Ilhan M. The effect of injection timing on the performance and emissions of
a dual fuel diesel engine. MSc thesis. Marmara University; 2007 [in Turkish].
[16] Huang ZH, Lu HB, Jiang DM, Zhang JQ, Wang XB. Combustion characteristics and
heat release analysis of a compression ignition engine operating on a diesel–
methanol blend. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D:
Journal of Automobile Engineering 2004;218:1011–24.
[17] Heywood JB. Internal combustion engines. USA: Mc-Graw Hill; 1984.
[18] Borat O, Balci M, Surmen A. Internal combustion engines. Turkey: Gazi
University Publishing; 2000 [in Turkish].
[19] Sayin C, Uslu K, Canakci M. Influence of injection timing on the exhaust
emissions of a dual-fuel CI engine. Renewable Energy 2008;33:1314–23.
[20] Parlak A, Yaşar H, Hasimoglu C, Kolip A. The effects of injection timing on NOx
emissions of a low heat rejection indirect diesel injection engine. Applied
Thermal Engineering 2005;25:3042–52.
[21] Nwafor OMI. Knock characteristics of dual-fuel combustion in diesel engines
using natural gas as primary fuel. Sadhana 2002;27:375–82.
[22] Abdel-Rahman AA. On the emissions from internal-combustion engines.
International Journal of Energy Research 2002;22(6):483–513.
[23] Sayin C, Ertunc HM, Hosoz M, Kilicaslan I, Canakci M. Performance and
exhaust emissions of a gasoline engine using artificial neural network. Applied
Thermal Engineering 2007;27:46–54.
[24] Canakci M. Combustion characteristics of a turbocharged DI compression
ignition engine fueled with petroleum diesel fuels and biodiesel. Bioresource
Technology 2007;98:1167–75.
[25] Whitten GZ, Reyes S. Air quality and ethanol in gasoline. In: Proceeding of
ninth annual ethanol conference, policy and marketing; 2004. p. 16–18.
[26] Borman GL, Ragland KW. Combustion engineering. USA: Mc-Graw Hill; 1999.
[27] Alla GH, Soliman HA, Badr OH, Rabbo MF. Effect of injection timing on the
performance of diesel engine. Energy Conversion and Management
2002;43:269–77.
[28] Pukrakek WW. Engineering fundamentals of the internal combustion engine.
USA: Simon and Schuster Company; 1997.
[29] Challen B, Baranescu R. Diesel engine reference book. England: Butterworth
and Heinemann Publishing; 1999.
[30] Ajav EA, Singh B, Bhattacharya TK. Performance of a stationary diesel engine
using vaporized ethanol as supplementary fuel. Biomass and Bioenergy
1998;15:493–502.
 C. Sayin et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 1261–1269
[31] Andrea TD, Henshaw PF, Ting DS. The addition of hydrogen to gasoline-fuelled
SI engine. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2004;29:1541–52.
[32] BOSCH. Automotive handbook. 5th ed. Germany: BOSCH; 2000.
[33] Nwafor OMI, Rice G, Ogbonna AI. Effect of advanced injection timing on the
performance of rapeseed oil in diesel engines. Renewable Energy
2000;21:433–44.
[34] Schobert HH. The chemistry of hydrocarbon fuels. England: Butterworth–
Heinemann Ltd; 1990.
[35] Stone R. Introduction to international combustion engines. China: MacMillan
Press Ltd; 1999.
[36] Can O, Celikten I, Usta N. Effects of ethanol addition on performance and
emissions of a turbocharged indirect injection diesel engine running at different
injection pressures. Energy Conversion and Management 2004;45:2429–40.
1269
[37] Shenghua L, Clemente RC, Tiegang H, Yanjv W. Study of spark ignition engine
fueled with methanol/gasoline blends. Applied Thermal Engineering
2007;27:1904–10.
[38] Bari S, Yu CW, Lim TH. Effect of fuel injection timing with waste cooking oil as
a fuel in a direct injection diesel engine. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering
2004;218:93–104.
[39] Cheng CH, Cheung CS, Chan TL, Lee SC, Yao CD, Tsang KS. Comparison of
emissions of a direct injection diesel engine operating on biodiesel with
emulsified and fumigated methanol. Fuel 2008;87:1870–9.
[40] TUPRAS. Product specification. Turkey; 2005 [in Turkish].
[41] Lombardini. Engine technical specification. Turkey: Lombardini; 2000 [in
Turkish].