Fuel 268 (2020) 117194

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Comparative study of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and hydrogen- T

enriched EGR employed in a SI engine fueled by biobutanol-gasoline
⁎
Lifeng Zhao , Xiangyang Su, Xueyuan Wang
School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, hydrogen was added to a isobutanol-gasoline engine during exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) op-
Engine eration. The effects of combined hydrogen-enrichment and EGR (HEGR) were assessed in terms of improvements
EGR in engine thermal efficiency and emissions reduction. The results showed that hydrogen had a positive influence
Hydrogen on the combustion behaviors of butanol-gasoline during EGR operation, as well as markedly reduced ignition
Butanol
delay and rapid burning duration, which was prolonged significantly when EGR operated alone. There was a
PM
higher brake thermal efficiency (BTE) for the butanol-gasoline engine during HEGR, which enhanced the BTE up
Emissions
~3–4%. Combustion stability was improved while the tendency for slowed burning with EGR was suppressed
with hydrogen addition. Wider EGR limits with hydrogen addition was observed due to improved combustion
stability. During EGR operation, there were increased unburnt hydrocarbon emissions in butanol-gasoline en-
gine, which was significantly reduced with hydrogen addition. Low NOx emissions were observed during HEGR
operation at the high EGR rate, which exhibited effective inhibition regarding particle number emissions in-
cluding particles in the nucleation and accumulation modes. HEGR was more effective in reducing PM compared
to EGR. The particle surface area concentration was significantly reduced with HEGR operation, and the particle
size was slightly reduced.

1. Introduction
Fossil fuel plays an important role in industry, agriculture, and
transportation, of which more than > 25% is consumed by transpor-
tation [1,2]. According to the American Energy Department, by 2035,
about 100 million barrels of oil per day will be consumed, as energy
demand continues to rise [3,4]. The world is facing problems such as an
energy crisis, oil dependence, and greenhouse gases. Therefore, the
search for renewable and clean energy has become a global challenge.
Biofuels are considered to be the most promising alternative fuels,
which can be produced by bio-fermentation and biofuels have been
shown to be beneficial to reducing engine emissions in general [5–7].
Bioethanol is commercially available on a large scale and has gained
global recognition as a gasoline additive, as in Brazil, the United States,
China, and other countries where bioethanol-gasoline is sold [8–10].
Biobutanol is regarded as the second generation biofuel by the De-
partment of Energy of the United States because of its similar perfor-
mance to gasoline and rapid biotechnological development [11,12].
Biobutanol is more suitable as a gasoline replacement fuel than ethanol
or methanol in terms of the fuel’s combustion characteristics.
Butanol is an oxygenated fuel with 4 carbon atoms [13,14], and has
been studied as a gasoline additive to replace gasoline and reduce ga-
soline consumption [15]. Compared with ethanol and methanol, bu-
tanol has combustion characteristics similar to gasoline and a higher
energy content [16,17]. Compared with gasoline, butanol’s latent heat
of vaporization increases by 21%, laminar burning speed increases by
15%, and energy density decreases by 23%. Butanol exhibits low cor-
rosion in fuel supply systems and does not absorb water vapor from the
air. Butanol is also easily dissolved in gasoline without separation
[18,19]. However, it has a higher viscosity than gasoline, resulting in
fuel injection and atomization problems, resulting in wall wetting and
fuel impingement.
One major issue of butanol burning is an increase in unburnt hy-
drocarbon (HC) emissions. Huang et al. [20] have reported that butanol
addition results in unburned HC increases and, for butanol gasoline or
pure butanol, the increase is considerable. According to Martin’s [15]
studies, if there is > 30% by volume of n-butanol or iso-butanol, the
start-ability is significantly worsened, due to that the reduced vapor
pressure of the blended fuel caused by butanol (9 and 0.49 psi for ga-
soline and butanol, respectively) [18].
Efficiency improvement of pure butanol or butanol-gasoline engines
can be achieved with charge dilution, such as EGR dilution and air

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhaolifeng@ustb.edu.cn (L. Zhao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117194
Received 27 October 2019; Received in revised form 6 January 2020; Accepted 22 January 2020
0016-2361/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Zhao, et al.
dilution [21]. EGR technology is being used in gasoline engines to
improve engine efficiency and reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions.
Previous studies have shown that EGR technology improves the thermal
efficiency of gasoline engine by 3–5% owing to reduced pumping and
heat transfer losses [22,23]. Compared with air dilution, EGR does not
cause decreased conversion efficiency of the three-way catalyst due to
there being no effect on the exhaust gas oxygen concentration [24].
EGR dilution lowers the throttling and pumping losses and also reduces
the heat transfer loss to chamber walls because EGR lowers the com-
bustion temperature [25]. EGR increases the triatomic gas content in
the cylinder charge, resulting in an increase in the specific heat of
working fluid, therefore, there is a decrease in the cylinder tempera-
ture. EGR lowers the combustion temperature, resulting in a significant
reduction in NOx emissions [25,26]. For a spark ignition engine, EGR
reduces the combustion temperature, resulting in low heat transfer loss,
but it has a negative impact on HC emissions, especially at low load.
According to a study by Hergueta et al. [27] butanol gasoline (33%
butanol, B33) has a positive effect on reducing CO, NOx, and CO2
emissions, compared with pure gasoline. EGR has little effect on CO
emissions with butanol-gasoline. EGR can reduce particulate matter
emissions, but EGR introduction leads to increased HC emissions
[28,29]. In conclusion, when EGR technology is applied to butanol or
butanol-gasoline engines, it might improve engine efficiency but also
produces HC emission problems. Moreover, EGR slows down combus-
tion heat release [30] and limits further improvement of thermal effi-
ciency.
Hydrogen addition might be a potential solution to the above-
mentioned problems regarding HC emissions and combustion slow-
down during EGR operations [31–33]. High thermal efficiency can be
obtained by increasing the flame speed of the mixture during EGR
operation, because the combustion heat release period can be shortened
[34,35] which is in agreement with Otto cycle engine theory con-
cerning constant volume combustion. This shortening of burning
duration can have a positive effect on the tolerance for charge dilution,
such as excess air and EGR dilutions [36]. Hydrogen can be used as an
auxiliary fuel to improve the combustion of internal combustion en-
gines [37]. The unique molecular structure of hydrogen and its physi-
cochemical properties serve to enhance the mixture burning process
[38]. Hydrogen has a wider ignition limit and lower ignition energy
compared to gasoline or butanol, which can be ignited in very lean
mixtures [39-41]. Compared with gasoline or butanol, hydrogen has a
higher laminar flame velocity (LFV), which can be used to solve the
problem of slow combustion caused by EGR [33,42,43]. Existing re-
search shows that hydrogen addition improves combustion stability and
alleviates the problem of combustion stability deterioration caused by
EGR [25,42,44]. However, when hydrogen is used alone as a fuel,
problems with premature combustion and NOx emissions easily occur.
When EGR is combined with hydrogen, hydrogen is useful to enhance
combustion behaviors under high EGR rate conditions, at the same
time, high burning speed of hydrogen can be partially inhibited by EGR.
In this investigation, the effects of combined EGR and hydrogen
addition on butanol-gasoline engine performance was examined, in-
cluding thermal efficiency, combustion behavior, and engine-out
emissions, which included gaseous emissions and particulate matter
(PM) emissions.
2. Experimental setup
Experiments were carried out using a four-cylinder gasoline direct
injection (GDI) engine. The stroke and bore of the engine are 84 and
82 mm, respectively. The main engine parameters listed in Table 1 and
the layout of the engine bench shown in Fig. 1. Hydrogen was supplied
in the intake pipe and mixed with air using a static mixer. Hydrogen
was injected by a natural gas injector (NG12, Bosch) closer to the intake
port. There was a flame arrestor-check valve in the supply pipe to im-
prove the safe usage of hydrogen. Butanol-gasoline fuel was injected
2
Fuel 268 (2020) 117194
Table 1
Technical specifications of the test engine.
Parameters Description/Specification
Displaced volume 1.8 L
Number of cylinders 4
Stroke 84 mm
Bore 82 mm
Connecting Rod 148 mm
Compressions ratio (geometric) 9.6:1
Injection pressure 50 bar
Crank angle encoder 600 ppr, 0.6 CAD resolution
through a multi-hole injector. High temperature-resistant pressure
transducers (6052C, Kistler Instrument Corp., Novi, MI, USA) were used
to measure combustion gas pressures in the cylinder and the pressure
signals were filtered and amplified by charge amplifiers. Crankshaft
positions were recorded using an optimal encoder with 0.6 CAD re-
solution. Combustion data were recorded and calculated using a com-
bustion analyzer (Kibox, Kistler Instrument Corp.). Engine emissions
were measured using a 5-gas analyzer (Total 8050, Motorscan Division,
Parma, Italy). The accuracy and uncertainty were shown in Table 2.
Experiments were repeated more than three times to reduce the mea-
surement uncertainty.
The engine speed was fixed at 2300 r/min and brake mean effective
pressure (BMEP) of 4.8 bar. The injection timing of liquid fuel was
300°CA BTDC with injection period of 40°CA. The spark ignition timing
was set at 23°CA BTDC and the hydrogen fraction 3% of intake air
volume. The EGR rate was swept from 0 to 24% and the interval at 6%.
A 33% volume of butanol was added to 67% of gasoline, denoted as
B33, with the butanol purity at 99.5%. The 33% vol. butanol was
chosen because of the trade-off between thermal efficiency, cold start-
ability and RON [15,45]. Gasoline was purchased from PetroChina
Beijing, 93# Gasoline, which was represented as B0. The specifications
of fuels were shown in Table 3. The engine cooling water and lu-
bricating oil temperatures were set to 85 and 90 °C, respectively. A
cooling unit was used to cool the EGR so that the cooled EGR tem-
perature was not higher than the ambient temperature of 10 °C.
The EGR rate was calculated using Eq. (1), which was based on the
CO2 concentration in the intake air and exhaust gases, measured using
the gas analyzer
CO2(intake) − CO2(am)
REGR = × 100%
CO2(exhaust ) − CO2(am) (1)
where CO2(intake) is the volume concentration of CO2 in the intake air
,and CO2(exhaust) is the CO2 volume concentration in the exhaust gas,
CO2(am) is the CO2 volume concentration in ambient air.
The combustion stability of the engine was evaluated by the cycle
variation coefficient (COV) of the cylinder pressure. 200 consecutive
cycles were collected in this test. The following formula provided the
calculation method of the COV of the cylinder pressure:
σIMEP
COVIMEP (%) = × 100%
PIMEP (2)
where PIMEP is the IMEP value and σIMEP the standard deviation.
Particle concentration and particle size were measured in this ex-
periment on a Model 3090 (TSI EEPS System) in the sample exhaust gas
per unit volume. A dilution system with 100 of dilution rate was used.
Scanning mobility particle sizer was measured in the Engine Exhaust
Particle Sizer (EEPS).
3. Results and discussions
A comparison of BTE under EGR and hydrogen-enrichment EGR
(HEGR) conditions showed that, during EGR operation, BTE was en-
hanced regardless of B33 or hydrogen-enrich B33 (Fig. 2). When the
L. Zhao, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117194

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram and photos of the experimental setup.

Table 2
Accuracy and uncertainty.
Measured parameter Accuracy Calculated parameter Uncertainty (%)

Engine speed ± 5 rpm IMEP 0.5

Engine torque ± 0.1 %FSR BSHC 1.8
Cylinder pressure ± 0.3 bar BSCO 1.8
Crank angle ± 0.6 CAD BSNOx 1.5
Temperature ±1 ℃
H2 mass flow ± 1% MV*
Air mass flow ± 1% MV
CO ± 0.01%
HC 1 ppm ± 4ppm
NOx 1 ppm ± 5ppm

MV* is the abbreviation of the measurement value.

EGR rate was in the range of 10–20%, the thermal efficiency of the B33
engine increased by 1–2%. EGR was beneficial to decrease pumping loss
Fig. 2. Comparison of brake thermal efficiency (BTE) of B33 under EGR and
and heat transfer loss to the chamber surfaces due to decreased in-cy-
HEGR.
linder temperature, such that EGR was beneficial to increased BTE [21].
However, at high EGR rate, the combustion slowed down, resulting in
long burning duration. The cycle efficiency reduced due to reduced
isobaric combustion [45]. The butanol-gasoline engine with hydrogen

Table 3
Fuel specifications [38,42].
Item Gasoline Hydrogen Isobutanol Isobutanol-gasoline (B33)

Density at 20 ℃ (kg/L) 0.78 0.09 0.8 0.79

Boiling point (℃) 40–210 −235 117.7 40–210
Latent heat of vaporization (kJ/kg) 310–340 – 430 350–370
Viscosity at 20 ℃ (mPa·s) 0.28–0.59 – 2.95 1.16–1.37
Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio 14.7 34.3 11.1 13.5
RON 80–98 < 130 96 –
Flammability in air (%v/v) 1.0–6.0 4–77 1.4–11.3 –
Flame quenching distance (cm) 0.2 0.06 – –
Low heating value (MJ/kg) 43.9 119.9 33 40.3
Laminar flame speed (cm/s) 51 210 58.5 –
Minimum ignition energy (mJ) 0.25 0.02 – –
Diffusion coefficient at stoichiometric condition (cm2/s) 0.05 0.61 – –

3
L. Zhao, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117194

Fig. 3. In-cylinder pressures under EGR and HEGR. Fig. 5. Cumulative heat release fraction under EGR and HEGR.

addition exhibited a higher BTE. There was ~2–3% increase in BTE

with hydrogen-EGR (HEGR). During HEGR operation, a higher BTE was
obtained at a higher EGR rate, which extended the EGR working limit.
However, EGR slowed the combustion process (Fig. 6), as the specific
heat capacity of the working fluid increased due to the introduction of
CO2 and H2O vapor into the charge [4], which had a negative effect on
BTE. Hydrogen has high diffusive velocity and laminar flame velocities
(LFV), which shortens combustion duration at high EGR rates, partially
solves the problem of slow combustion caused by EGR [21]. Moreover,
due to the acceleration of combustion rate, the cycle variation under
EGR is reduced (Fig. 7), such that higher BTE was obtained while
combustion stability was also acceptable.
There is a higher latent heat of vaporization and lower caloric value
for butanol-gasoline, compared with pure gasoline. The cylinder pres-
sure comparison under EGR and HEGR conditions showed that, no
matter what kind of fuel, there was a retarding trend of cylinder pres-
sure with increased EGR (Fig. 3). Hydrogen addition advanced the
phase of peak cylinder pressure. Figs. 4 and 5 show the heat release rate
and cumulative heat release, respectively. EGR containing a large
amount of non active gas significantly slowed the combustion process,
which was not conducive to the acquisition of useful work in the engine
expansion stroke [4]. This was not conducive to vaporization of fuel
droplets due to the reduced in-cylinder temperature caused by EGR
(Fig. 9), resulting in incomplete combustion, as confirmed by increased
HC emissions (Fig. 10). Hydrogen accelerated the mixture combustion
[42], thus shortening the combustion duration and improving the en-
gine isochoric burning. During HEGR operation, the problem of

Fig. 6. Effects of hydrogen on burning duration under EGR conditions. a.

Ignition delay (CA0-10) under EGR and HEGR. b. Rapid flame duration (CA10-
90) under EGR and HEGR.

incomplete combustion due to poor vaporization was improved by in-

creasing the combustion temperature. Both EGR and butanol were not
conducive to mixture quality [42], but, hydrogen addition enabled the
engine to have a stable power output at higher EGR rates.
The effects of EGR and HEGR on combustion duration showed that
during EGR dilution operation, the ignition delay (CA0-10) and rapid
flame duration (CA10-90) both exhibited markedly upward trends
Fig. 4. Heat release rate under EGR and HEGR.

4
L. Zhao, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117194

Fig. 7. Comparison of COV under EGR and HEGR. Fig. 8. Pressure rise rate (PRR) under EGR and HEGR.

(Fig. 6). With B33 fuel, the ignition delay was approximately doubled at
the maximum EGR rate. During HEGR operation, although there was an
increased ignition delay and rapid flame duration of butanol gasoline
(B33), hydrogen reduced the combustion period increase. EGR resulted
in an increase in incylinder non active gas, such as CO2 and water vapor
[4], in addition to decreased fuel molar concentration, which resulted
in a slower combustion chemical reaction and thus an extended com-
bustion duration. Compared with gasoline and butanol, hydrogen had a
higher diffusive velocity, higher laminar flame velocity (LFV) (210, 51
and 58 cm/s for hydrogen, gasoline and butanol, respectively), which
improved the combustion of hydrogen-enriched B33 under EGR con-
ditions. The result was in agreement with previous laminar flame re-
search of blended fuels [33,42]. The hydrogen has lower ignition en-
ergy (0.02 and 0.24 mJ for hydrogen and gasoline, respectively), which
caused an easier early ignition and shorten the ignition delay. The re-
sults was in agreement with the literature concerning that hydrogen
addition enhanced burning velocity [41,46]. At the same time, hy- Fig. 9. Comparison of exhaust gas temperature (EGT) under EGR and HEGR.
drogen increased the combustion temperature under EGR conditions,
improved fuel evaporation and atomization, and shortened the initial
combustion duration.
EGR slowed the combustion process and led to poor combustion
stability, which was an obstacle to a high EGR rate. The combustion
stability during EGR and HEGR operations showed that the cycle COV
of B33 and B33-hydrogen exhibited an upward trend with EGR (Fig. 7).
During HEGR operation, hydrogen significantly reduced the COV of
B33, indicating an improvement in combustion stability, which was in
agreement with previous research [47]. Hydrogen was easy to ignite,
such that its high diffusive velocity here improved mixture homo-
geneity and the high LFV increased flame propagation [38], which
speeded up the combustion process during HEGR operation and im-
proved combustion stability. Moreover, hydrogen made the COV value
of B33 at high EGR rates to be an acceptable (< 5%), thereby extending
the EGR limit.
Hydrogen has a high burning speed, at the same time, it might lead
to early burning and a high pressure rise rate (PRR). In this section, the Fig. 10. Comparison of HC emission variations under EGR and HEGR.
PRR after hydrogen addition was evaluated, comparing the PRR under
EGR and HEGR conditions (Fig. 8). EGR reduced the PRR of butanol-
hydrogen addition resulted in increased EGT of B33 which was higher
gasoline blends. The PRR after hydrogen addition increased sig-
than that of B0. The higher latent HOV of butanol blends in comparison
nificantly, slightly higher than the PRR of butanol-gasoline, and did not
to gasoline led to a temperature drop in the cylinder charge at the end
show excessive PRR. Because the LFV of hydrogen was higher than that
of a compression stroke, which partially contributed to the temperature
of gasoline or butanol (58.5, 51, 210 cm/s for butanol, gasoline, hy-
reduction during the burning process. The results was in agreement
drogen, respectively), the combustion of hydrogen-enriched mixtures
with previous research of a 30% butanol-gasoline blend [48]. Hydrogen
were faster and the PRR higher. At the same time, the inhibition of EGR
was used to improve combustion rather than the main energy source in
on combustion reduced the PRR with hydrogen addition.
this test. Hydrogen has high energy density, the incylinder temperature
Fig. 9 presents the exhaust gas temperatures (EGTs) under EGR and
was increased and the exhaust temperature also slightly increased.
HEGR conditions. It can be seen that the EGT of butanol-gasoline de-
Because of the high latent heat of vaporization of butanol-gasoline,
creased by 5–15 ° C relative to that of gasoline as a whole. The

5
L. Zhao, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117194

Fig. 11. Comparison of NOx emission variations under EGR and HEGR.
Fig. 12. Comparison of CO emissions variation under EGR and HEGR.

the mixture temperature decreased in the compression stroke, which

was not conducive to HC emissions [20]. In this section, HC emissions
from butanol-gasoline were evaluated. The EGR significantly increased
HC emissions with B33 which was shown in Fig. 10. At the same time,
the higher viscosity of butanol led to poorer fuel atomization [13]. The
observed increased HC emissions were significantly decreased when
hydrogen was added, especially at high EGR rates. Hydrogen made the
butanol-gasoline mixture burn more rapidly and heat release con-
centrate [33], which increased the combustion temperature, it was
beneficial for improving the mixture quality and made combustion
complete. Because of the short quenching distance of hydrogen, the fuel
film effects decreased [7,20], which was beneficial for reducing HC
emissions. Hydrogen is a carbon-free fuel, which was beneficial for
reducing the hydrocarbon fuel injection amount per cycle, and had a
direct impact on reducing HC emissions. The reduced hydrocarbon fuel
contributed an approximate 15% reduction in HC emissions while the
HC emissions were reduced by about 40–50% with hydrogen in-
troduction.
NOx emissions under EGR and HEGR, showed that NOx emissions
Fig. 13. Comparison of particle number and size distribution under EGR and
were significantly inhibited by EGR, therefore, NOx concentrations HEGR.
were significantly reduced (Fig. 11). During HEGR operation, NOx
emissions increased slightly compared with B33. However, lower NOx
emissions at maximum EGR rate were obtained with hydrogen. In ad- distribution (Fig. 13). For B33 fuel, the particle size corresponding to
dition to oxygen concentration, combustion temperature is a key factor the peak concentration in nucleation and accumulation modes were 11
affecting NOx emissions [4,27]. EGR reduced the combustion tem- and 20–30 nm, respectively. During EGR or HEGR operation, the par-
perature [49], and butanol addition also lowered the combustion ticle size corresponding to the peak concentration was 10–20 nm.
temperature, resulting in a reduction in NOx emissions. Hydrogen ad- Under HEGR conditions, the particulate matter concentration was fur-
dition increased the in-cylinder temperature, resulting in a slight in- ther reduced, with one of the major reasons being the reduced con-
crease in NOx emissions. This increase in NOx from hydrogen addition sumption of hydrocarbon fuel due to hydrogen addition. The peak PN
was reduced because of the reduced combustion temperature with decreased about 35% with HEGR while the injection amount of B33 per
butanol. cycle was reduced by about 15% with hydrogen replacement. On the
CO is a product of incomplete combustion, which is not further whole, the particle size shifted to a smaller size with HEGR. In addition
oxidized in the combustion process according to previous studies to lubricant oil, one source of the particle matter was fuel–air mixture
[8,21]. The present results showed that CO emissions during EGR and inhomogeneity, particles formed at high temperatures and rich-fuel
HEGR operation exhibited similar CO emissions (Fig. 12). Because the regions according to the literature [50]. Thus, the mixture quality
mixture concentration was stoichiometric under EGR or HEGR condi- (homogeneous) and combustion temperature had an important influ-
tions, the cylinder oxygen concentration was not affected by hydrogen ence on particle formation [17].
addition. Hydrogen made the combustion temperature rise, which was As shown in Fig. 13, the reduction in particle number occurs during
beneficial to CO oxidation in the later stage of combustion and made EGR operation. The introduction of EGR increased the triatomic gas in
CO emissions slightly decrease. the cylinder, resulting in an increase in the specific heat ratio of the
Particulate matter in engine exhaust is generally considered to be working fluid, resulting in a decrease in combustion temperature [4].
composed of volatile and nonvolatile substances [28,50]. According to There were less pyrolysis and dehydrogenation of hydrocarbon fuel
particle size, particles can be classified to nucleation and accumulation because the high temperature and oxygen-rich region decreased with
modes, with the particle size in nucleation mode at < 20 nm and in EGR dilution [28]. However, the lower combustion temperature was
accumulation mode > 20 nm. not conducive to PM oxidation in the later combustion stage [3]. Hy-
The particle size distribution and particle concentration from ex- drogen is a carbon-free fuel and hydrogen addition thus reduced the
hausts showed that the particulate matter showed a bimodal needed amount of hydrocarbon fuel and directly reduced the PM

6
L. Zhao, et al.
Fig. 14. Total particle concentration under EGR and HEGR.
source.
In summary, EGR lowered the burning temperature, but hydrogen
addition increased the reduced burning temperature owing to EGR.
Reduced combustion temperature lowered PM generation [14], but it
was unfavorable to PM oxidation in the late stage of the combustion
process [28], as a result of the above factors, with the PM concentration
reduced ~30–40%. Fig. 14 shows total particle concentration. Under
the action of HEGR, the total PM concentration significantly decreased
and the particle diameter also showed a decreasing trend. The de-
creased particle concentration was beneficial for reducing the adsorp-
tion of organic matter [51].
4. Conclusions
In this project, hydrogen, as an auxiliary fuel, was added to a bu-
tanol-gasoline engine during EGR operation. The effects of hydrogen on
the combustion behaviors of B33 were investigated and the engine
thermal efficiency and emissions were assessed while the hydrogen was
combined with EGR.
It was observed that the combustion progress of butanol-gasoline
mixture slowed down with EGR. Hydrogen addition exhibited a positive
influence on the B33 burning duration and inhibited the slowing trend.
Combustion stability was improved during HEGR operation because of
the reduced burn period extension.
There was a higher BTE with HEGR than that with EGR, such that
EGR enabled the BTE increase ~2%. Hydrogen addition further en-
hanced the BTE up ~3–4%. The EGR limit was extended by hydrogen
with an acceptable combustion stability.
HC emissions with B33 increased markedly with EGR, which was
effectively reduced with hydrogen addition. Lower HC emissions were
also observed during HEGR operation. NOx emissions decreased sig-
nificantly with EGR or HEGR, with slightly higher NOx emissions ob-
served with HEGR relative to EGR. Low NOx emissions (< 2 g/kW·h)
were observed with HEGR at the maximum EGR rate.
The lowest particle concentration was observed during HEGR op-
eration. Particles in nucleation and accumulation modes were both
markedly reduced with EGR or HEGR, HEGR was more effective in
reducing PM compared to EGR. The particle concentration was reduced
significantly with HEGR, which was favorable for reducing organic
matter adsorption.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lifeng Zhao: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - original
draft. Xiangyang Su: Software, Investigation. Xueyuan Wang: Writing
- review & editing.
7
Fuel 268 (2020) 117194
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The work discussed in this paper is supported by the National Key
Research and Development Program of China (No. 2018YFC0604402),
the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China
(No. 2302015 FRF-BR-15-052A) and the China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation, China (No. 2013M540251).
References
[1] Dernotte J, Mounaim-Rousselle C, Halter F, Seers P. Evaluation of butanol-gasoline
blends in a port fuel-injection, spark-ignition engine. Oil Gas Sci Technol
2010;65:345–51.
[2] Awad OI, Mamat R, Ali OM, Sidik NAC, Yusaf T, Kadirgama K, et al. Alcohol and
ether as alternative fuels in spark ignition engine: A review. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2018;82:2586–605.
[3] Karavalakis G, Short D, Hajbabaei M, Vu D, Villela M, Russell R, et al. Criteria
Emissions, Particle Number Emissions, Size Distributions, and Black Carbon
Measurements from PFI Gasoline Vehicles Fuelled with Different Ethanol and
Butanol Blends. SAE paper no. 2013-01-1147; 2013.
[4] Vancoillie J, Sileghem L, Van de Ginste M, Demuynck J, Galle J, Verhelst S.
Experimental Evaluation of Lean-burn and EGR as Load Control Strategies for
Methanol Engines. SAE paper No. 2012-01-1283; 2012.
[5] Singh SB, Dhar A, Agarwal AK. Technical feasibility study of butanol-gasoline
blends for powering medium-duty transportation spark ignition engine. Renew
Energy 2015;76:706–16.
[6] Yanai T, Han X, Wang M, Reader GT, Zheng M, Tjong J. Clean Combustion in a
Diesel Engine Using Direct Injection of Neat n-Butanol. SAE Technical Paper 2014-
01-1298; 2014.
[7] Yang J, Ji C. A comparative study on performance of the rotary engine fueled hy-
drogen/gasoline and hydrogen/n-butanol. Int J Hydrogen Energ
2018;43:22669–75.
[8] Jandl S, Schmidt S, Piecha P, Schacht H, Seidel T. Influence of Ethanol and 2-
Butanol Blended Fuels on Combustion and Emissions in a Small Displacement Two
Stroke Engine. SAE Technical Paper 2018-32-0044; 2018.
[9] Catapano F, Sementa P, Vaglieco BM. Air-fuel mixing and combustion behavior of
gasoline-ethanol blends in a GDI wall-guided turbocharged multi-cylinder optical
engine. Renew Energy 2016;96:319–32.
[10] Zhang J, Nithyanandan K, Li Y, Lee C, Huang Z. Comparative Study of High-
Alcohol-Content Gasoline Blends in an SI Engine. SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-
0891; 2015.
[11] Kuszewski H. Experimental investigation of the effect of ambient gas temperature
on the autoignition properties of ethanol–diesel fuel blends. Fuel 2018;214:26–38.
[12] Irimescu A. Performance and fuel conversion efficiency of a spark ignition engine
fueled with iso-butanol. Appl Energy 2012;96:477–83.
[13] Li Y, Guo H, Wang J, Xu H. The Comparative Study of Gasoline and n-butanol on
Spray Characteristics. SAE Technical Paper 2014-01-2754; 2014.
[14] Irimescu A, Merola SS, Di Iorio S, Vaglieco BM. Investigation on the effects of bu-
tanol and ethanol fueling on combustion and PM emissions in an optically acces-
sible DISI engine. Fuel 2018;216:121–41.
[15] Pechout M, Dittrich A, Vojtisek-Lom M. Operation of an Ordinary PFI Engine on n-
butanol and Iso-butanol and Their Blends with Gasoline. SAE Technical Paper 2014-
01-2618; 2013.
[16] Dagaut P, Togbe C. Oxidation kinetics of butanol-gasoline surrogate mixtures in a
jet-stirred reactor: Experimental and modeling study. Fuel 2008;87:3313–21.
[17] Vojtisek-Lom M, Beranek V, Stolcpartova J, Pechout M, Klir V. Effects of n-Butanol
and Isobutanol on Particulate Matter Emissions from a Euro 6 Direct-injection Spark
Ignition Engine During Laboratory and on-Road Tests. SAE Int J Engines
2015;5:2338–50.
[18] Sileghem L, Ickes A, Wallner T, Verhelst S. Experimental Investigation of a DISI
Production Engine Fuelled with Methanol, Ethanol, Butanol and ISO-
Stoichiometric Alcohol Blends. SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-0768; 2015.
[19] Wigg B, Coverdill R, Lee C, Kyritsis D. Emissions Characteristics of Neat Butanol
Fuel Using a Port Fuel-Injected, Spark-Ignition Engine. SAE paper no. 2011-01-
0902; 2011.
[20] Gu X, Huang Z, Cai J, Gong J, Wu X, Lee C. Emission characteristics of a spark-
ignition engine fuelled with gasoline-n-butanol blends in combination with EGR.
Fuel 2012;93:611–7.
[21] Xie F, Li X, Su Y, Hong W, Jiang B, Han L. Influence of air and EGR dilutions on
improving performance of a high compression ratio spark-ignition engine fueled
with methanol at light load. Appl Therm Eng 2016;94:559–67.
[22] Han J, Wang S, Somers B. Effects of Different Injection Strategies and EGR on
Partially Premixed Combustion. SAE Technical Paper 2018-01-1798; 2018.
[23] Su J, Xu M, Li T, Gao Y, Wang J. Combined effects of cooled EGR and a higher
geometric compression ratio on thermal efficiency improvement of a downsized
L. Zhao, et al.
boosted spark-ignition direct-injection engine. Energ Convers Manage
2014;78:65–73.
[24] Duffour F, Knop V, Vangraefschepe F, Leone T, Pascal V. Quantifying Benefits of
Dual Cam Phasers, Lean Mixture and EGR on the Operating Range and Fuel
Economy of a PFI NVO CAI Engine. SAE paper no. 2010-01-0844; 2010.
[25] Ivanič Ž, Ayala F, Goldwitz J, Heywood JB. Effects of Hydrogen Enhancement on
Efficiency and NOx Emissions of Lean and EGR-Diluted Mixtures in a SI Engine. SAE
Int J Fuels Lubr 2017;10:82–94.
[26] Xie K, Yu S, Yu X, Bryden G, Zheng M, Liu M. Investigation of Multi-Pole Spark
Ignition Under Lean Conditions and with EGR. SAE paper no. 2017-01-0679; 2017.
[27] Hergueta C, Bogarra M, Tsolakis A, Essa K, Herreros JM. Butanol-gasoline blend and
exhaust gas recirculation, impact on GDI engine emissions. Fuel 2017;208:662–72.
[28] Myung CL, Ko A, Park S. Review on characterization of nano-particle emissions and
PM morphology from internal combustion engines: Part 1. Int J Auto Tech-Kor
2014;15:203–18.
[29] Yu X, Guo Z, He L, Dong W, Sun P, Shi W, et al. Effect of gasoline/n-butanol blends
on gaseous and particle emissions from an SI direct injection engine. Fuel
2018;229:1–10.
[30] Hu E, Jiang X, Huang Z, Iida N. Numerical Study on the Effects of Diluents on the
Laminar Burning Velocity of Methane-Air Mixtures. Energ Fuel 2012;26:4242–52.
[31] Huang Z, Zhang Y, Zeng K, Liu B, Wang Q, Jiang D. Measurements of laminar
burning velocities for natural gas-hydrogen-air mixtures. Combust Flame
2006;146:302–11.
[32] Chen Z, Wei L, Huang Z, Miao H, Wang X, Jiang D. Measurement of Laminar
Burning Velocities of Dimethyl Ether-Air Premixed Mixtures with N-2 and CO2
Dilution. Energ Fuel 2009;23:735–9.
[33] Hu E, Huang Z, He J, Jin C, Zheng J. Experimental and numerical study on laminar
burning characteristics of premixed methane-hydrogen-air flames. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2009;34:4876–88.
[34] Hu E, Huang Z, Liu B, Zheng J, Gu X. Experimental study on combustion char-
acteristics of a spark-ignition engine fueled with natural gas-hydrogen blends
combining with EGR. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:1035–44.
[35] Hu E, Huang Z, Liu B, Zheng J, Gu X, Huang B. Experimental investigation on
performance and emissions of a spark-ignition engine fuelled with natural gas-hy-
drogen blends combined with EGR. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:528–39.
[36] Merola SS, Irimescu A, Tornatore C, Marchitto L, Valentino G. Split Injection in a
DISI Engine Fuelled with Butanol and Gasoline Analyzed through Integrated
Methodologies. SAE Int J Engines 2015;8:474–94.
[37] Gong C, Li Z, Yi L, Liu F. Comparative study on combustion and emissions between
methanol port-injection engine and methanol direct-injection engine with H2-en-
riched port-injection under lean-burn conditions. Energ Convers Manage
Fuel 268 (2020) 117194
2019;200:112096.
[38] Yilmaz İ, Taştan M. Investigation of hydrogen addition to methanol-gasoline blends
in an SI engine. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:20252–61.
[39] Kim J, Chun KM, Song S, Baek H, Lee SW. Effect of Hydrogen as an Additive on Lean
Limit and Emissions of a Turbo Gasoline Direct Injection Engine. SAE paper no.
2015-01-1886; 2015.
[40] He F, Li S, Yu X, Du Y, Zuo X, Dong W, et al. Comparison study and synthetic
evaluation of combined injection in a spark ignition engine with hydrogen-blended
at lean burn condition. Energy 2018;157:1053–62.
[41] Naruke M, Morie K, Sakaida S, Tanaka K, Konno M. Effects of hydrogen addition on
engine performance in a spark ignition engine with a high compression ratio under
lean burn conditions. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:15565–74.
[42] Chintala V, Benaerjee D, Ghodke PK, Porpatham E. Hydrogen rich exhaust gas re-
circulation (H2EGR) for performance improvement and emissions reduction of a
compression ignition engine. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2019;44:18545–58.
[43] Park C, Kim Y, Choi Y, Lee J, Lim B. The effect of engine speed and cylinder-to-
cylinder variations on backfire in a hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:22223–30.
[44] Gong C, Li Z, Yi L, Huang K, Liu F. Research on the performance of a hydrogen/
methanol dual-injection assisted spark-ignition engine using late-injection strategy
for methanol. Fuel 2020;260:116403.
[45] Kolodziej CP, Pamminger M, Sevik J, Wallner T, Wagnon SW, Pitz WJ. Effects of
Fuel Laminar Flame Speed Compared to Engine Tumble Ratio, Ignition Energy, and
Injection Strategy on Lean and EGR Dilute Spark Ignition Combustion. SAE Int J
Fuels Lubr 2017;10:82–94.
[46] Zhang B, Ji C, Wang S. Investigation on the lean combustion performance of a
hydrogen-enriched n-butanol engine. Energ Convers Manage 2017;136:36–43.
[47] Huang B, Hu E, Huang Z, Zheng J, Liu B, Jiang D. Cycle-by-cycle variations in a
spark ignition engine fueled with natural gas-hydrogen blends combined with EGR.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:8405–14.
[48] Alasfour FN. Butanol-A single cylinder engine study: Engine performance. Int J
Energy Res 1997;21:21–30.
[49] Saanum I, Bysveen M, Tunestål P, Johansson B. Lean Burn Versus Stoichiometric
Operation with EGR and 3-Way Catalyst of an Engine Fueled with Natural Gas and
Hydrogen Enriched Natural Gas. SAE paper No. 2007-01-0015; 2007.
[50] Myung CL, Park S. Exhaust nanoparticle emissions from internal combustion en-
gines: A review. Int J Auto Tech-Kor 2012;13:9–22.
[51] Sgro LA, Sementa P, Vaglieco BM, Rusciano G, D'Anna A, Minutolo P. Investigating
the origin of nuclei particles in GDI engine exhausts. Combust Flame
2012;159:1687–92.