Fuel 297 (2021) 120732

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Full Length Article

Effect of H2 addition to methanol-gasoline blend on an SI engine at various

lambda values and engine loads: A case of performance, combustion, and
emission characteristics
Selçuk Sarıkoç
Amasya University, Tasova Yuksel Akin Vocational School, Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of hydrogen and methanol addition on the engine
Hydrogen-methanol-gasoline performance, combustion, and emission characteristics of a spark-ignition engine. The experiments were per­
Methanol-gasoline formed with pure gasoline, methanol-gasoline, and hydrogen-methanol-gasoline fuel blend under various engine
Fuel blend
loads (25Nm, 50Nm, 75Nm, and 100Nm, 100%), different lambda values (0.8, 1, and 1.2), and a constant engine
SI engine
speed (2000 rpm). The hydrogen energy substitute rate method was applied for hydrogen enrichment that was
Performance
Combustion constituted by 5% of the total input fuel energy. The experimental results indicated that the average values of
Emissions brake specific fuel consumption were increased by 11.98% with the methanol-gasoline test fuel, while decreased
4.07% with the hydrogen-methanol-gasoline fuel blend. The average values of brake thermal efficiency were
slightly increased by 0.07% and 0.61% with the methanol-gasoline and hydrogen-methanol-gasoline fuel blends,
respectively. The combustion characteristics were improved after adding the methanol and hydrogen. In this
respect, the average ignition delay values decreased by 6.45% with the addition of the methanol in gasoline,
while the combustion duration, maximum cylinder pressure, and maximum heat release rate values increased by
0.85%, 1.66%, and 2.32%, respectively. Furthermore, the ignition delay and combustion duration values were
substantially affected by the addition of the hydrogen and observed to be at rates of 21.10% and 6.93%
reduction, respectively. In addition, the maximum cylinder pressure and maximum heat release rate values were
increased by 2.02% and 4.13%. The combustion characteristics improved after the addition of hydrogen and
methanol, which also considerably affected the engine performance and emission characteristics. The average
values of exhaust gas temperature, hydrocarbon, carbon dioxide were increased by 0.92%, 2.26%, and 0.156%
with methanol and the values of carbon monoxide and nitrogen monoxide were decreased by 1.09% and 11.82%,
respectively. However, the hydrocarbon, carbon dioxide values were decreased by 13.06%, 3.90% with the
hydrogen, while the carbon monoxide, exhaust gas temperature, and nitrogen monoxide were increased by
1.84%, 1.38%, and 31.68%, respectively. Although nitrogen monoxide was considerably decreased by the
methanol, a drastic increase was observed with the hydrogen. The optimum brake specific fuel consumption and
nitrogen monoxide values occurred between 68.61 Nm and 74.55 Nm of the engine loads for the methanol-
gasoline and hydrogen-methanol-gasoline test fuels at λ = 1 and 1.2. Overall, the engine performance, com­
bustion, and emission characteristics were improved by the addition of hydrogen and methanol in the test fuels
due to their superior fuel properties compared to gasoline.

climate change, and the depletion of fossil fuel enforce the use of clean
and alternative fuels [3]. Thus, vegetable oils, alcohols, and hydrogen
1. Introduction
are offered as alternative fuels instead of the fossil-based fuels [4].
Biofuels can be taken into account as one of the promising alternative
Limited fossil-based fuel resources and an increasing fuel consump­
fuels to reduce global warming and climate change [5]. These alterna­
tion trend has caused important economic and environmental problems
tive fuels can be produced from different feedstock. Especially, biomass
[1]. Furthermore, the combustion of fossil fuels leads to hazardous
emerges to be a promising feedstock due to its renewable, environ­
pollution and greenhouse gas in the atmosphere due to the emission of
mental, and economic potential [6]. In this respect, forests are one of the
CO, CO2, NOx, and unburned HC [2]. In this respect, global warming,

E-mail addresses: sarikocselcuk@gmail.com, sarikocselcuk@amasya.edu.tr.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.120732
Received 8 December 2020; Received in revised form 8 February 2021; Accepted 20 March 2021
Available online 6 April 2021
0016-2361/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Sarıkoç
Nomenclature
bTDC before top dead center (oCA)
BSFC brake specific fuel consumption (g/kWh)
BTE brake thermal efficiency
CA crank angle (degree)
CD combustion duration
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CPmax maximum cylinder pressure (bar)
ECU engine control unit
EGT exhaust gas temperature
G100 G100% pure gasoline
HC hydrocarbon
HES Hydrogen energy substitute rate (%)
HRRmax maximum heat release rate (J/CA)
ID ignition delay
LFS laminar flame speed (cm/s)
LHV lower heating value
main bioenergy sources for biofuels such as bio-oils and bio-alcohols,
which can be considered alternative fuels for the internal combustion
engine [7]. Thus, bio-alcohols, biodiesel, hydrogen, and biogas are used
as alternative fuels in these engines [8].
There are a large number of published studies, which have investi­
gated the usage of alternative fuels in internal combustion engines in the
literature. These studies have covered alcohols [9–11] (methanol
[12,13], ethanol [14–16], propanol [17], butanol [18,19], pentanol
[20]), biodiesel [21], biogas [22], natural gas [23], and hydrogen
[24,25]. Diesel and gasoline engine fuel properties can be improved by
alternative fuel additives such as alcohols and biodiesel [26]. Therefore,
different ratios of blends of alternative fuels are used with gasoline or
diesel in internal combustion engines.
Although different kind of alternative fuels exist, hydrogen is
accepted to be the most promising alternative fuel for the internal
combustion engine due to being renewable and having zero carbon
emissions [4]. In addition, hydrogen can be produced from different
methods and resources. For instance, fossil fuels, nuclear power, and
renewable energy, e.g., biomass, wind, and solar energy can be
considered as resources. Therefore, long-term sustainability, zero
harmful emissions, and high efficiency bring hydrogen to the forefront
compared to other fuels [27]. In addition, hydrogen has about a seven
times higher laminar flame speed than that of natural gas and gasoline.
Furthermore, it has a low ignition energy and an extremely high diffu­
sion coefficient, which causes a homogeneous air–fuel mixture. These
specifications provide a more stable combustion process [28]. Because
of these reasons, hydrogen emerges as one of the clean and renewable
alternative fuel additives for internal combustion engines.
Some experiments, which were performed to determine the effect of
methanol and hydrogen addition on the engine performance, combus­
tion, and emissions of an SI engine, in the literature are as follows:
Çelik et al. [29] used pure methanol in an SI engine at a high
compression ratio. It was determined that the engine power and BTE
increased and CO, CO2, and NOx emissions reduced by increased
compression ratio. Balki and Sayin [30] attempted to determine
convenient engine performance, combustion characteristics, and emis­
sions in a compression ratio of an SI engine fueled with pure ethanol,
methanol, and gasoline. It was demonstrated that the highest combus­
tion efficiency was obtained to be 99.45% at a compression ratio of 8.5:1
due to the high oxygen content. Chen et al. [23] studied the effects of
spark timing and methanol addition on the combustion and emission
characteristics fueled with natural gas/methanol It was obtained that
the addition of methanol leads to an improvement in the BTE, a decrease
2
Fuel 297 (2021) 120732
M20 G80% Gasoline + 20% Methanol (in volumetric)
M20 + H2 G80% Gasoline + 20% Methanol (in volumetric) + 5%
hydrogen
n engine speed (rpm)
NO nitrogen monoxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
O2 oxygen
P cylinder pressure (bar)
Pe effective brake power (kW)
rpm revolution per minute
Qnet heat value (J)
SoI start of ignition (oCA)
SI spark ignition
V cylinder volume (m3)
ṁfuel fuel mass (g/h)
ṁH2 hydrogen mass (g/h)
θ represents crank angle (oCA)
γ specific heat the ratio
λ lambda
in the total HC emission, and a rise in the NOx. Li et al. [31] performed
experimental studies on effects on combustion, performance, and
emission characteristics of alcohol blends, such as methanol, ethanol,
and butanol in an SI engine at various equivalence ratios and engine
loads. It was reported that the combustion phasing was positively
affected by the addition of alcohols. In addition, methanol-gasoline
blends lead to the lowest NOx emissions. Danaiah et al. [12] conduct­
ed research with methanol-gasoline blends mixed in volumetric M5,
M10, and M15 ratios. The effects of methanol blends were investigated
on engine performance and emission characteristics. It was concluded
that M10 and M15 were suitable for better engine performance and
decreased emissions. Agarwal et al. [32] reported that the BTE of
methanol-gasoline blends (M10 and M20) was higher than gasoline.
Additionally, lower CO, NO, and smoke emissions were observed with
the methanol-gasoline blends. Sarıkoç [33] investigated the effects of
various lambda values on the engine performance, combustion, and
emission characteristics fueled with methanol-gasoline blend (M20) at
full load. It was found that methanol properties, such as higher octane
number, rich oxygen content, and LFS considerably affects the engine
performance, combustion process, and exhaust emissions.
Meng et al. [34] studied the effects of different spark timing and
hydrogen addition fractions on the combustion and emission charac­
teristics of an n-butanol SI engine with hydrogen direct injection. The
results exhibited that the BSFC reduced with hydrogen, while the peak
cylinder pressure and HRR increased. It was reported that the NOx
emissions were dramatically increased by the increment of hydrogen
fraction, whereas the HC and CO emissions were dropped. Ceviz et al.
[35] used gasoline-hydrogen blends to investigate engine performance,
exhaust emissions, and cyclic variations compared to pure gasoline. It
was reported that the thermal efficiency and fuel consumption were
favorably affected by the hydrogen addition. A reduction of 12% rate in
the specific fuel consumption and an increase of 18% at 5.28% of the
hydrogen-gasoline ratio were found. Ji and Wang conducted some of the
experiments on the effects of hydrogen addition on a hybrid hydrogen-
gasoline SI engine and its performance, combustion, and emission
characteristics at various engine conditions, such as at idle, low load,
different engine speed and hydrogen value fraction, and lean conditions.
The hydrogen volume fractions were in the total input gas of 1%, 3%,
and 4.5%, was adjusted, and the excess air ratios were extended from
1.45 to 2.55. It was obtained that the BTE, CO, HC, and NOx values were
improved at lean burn limits [36]. In addition, the excess air of 1, 1.18,
1.43, 1.67 and the hydrogen volume fractions in the intake of 3%, 5%,
and 8% conditions were investigated. It was reported that the BTE and
S. Sarıkoç
torque were increased, the combustion phases and HC values were
decreased, whereas the NOx values are increased with the increment of
hydrogen volume fraction [37]. It was noted that the combustion pha­
ses, such as flame development and propagation periods were consid­
erably lessened with the addition of hydrogen due to the high LFS and
very low ignition energy of hydrogen [38]. Yang and Ji [39] reported
that the BTE and peak temperature increased with the increase of
hydrogen fraction because of the improved combustion process,
whereas the ID and CD periods decreased. It was indicated that HC, CO,
and CO2 emissions were apparently decreased with the increase of
hydrogen fraction. Yu et al. [28] investigated the effects of hydrogen
addition and the use of EGR on the engine performance, combustion,
and emission characteristics of an SI dual-fuel engine. The authors found
that ID tends to reduce with increases in the hydrogen energy fraction. In
addition, the HRR increased with the hydrogen that accelerated the
combustion process due to high LFS. It was reported that the best results
were obtained with the hydrogen energy fraction rate of 25% with 30%
EGR at λ = 1.2, and 20% addition of hydrogen with a rate of 30% EGR at
λ = 1.4., respectively.
Gong et al. [40] compared a methanol port-injection engine and
methanol direct-injection engine with hydrogen-enriched port-injection
under lean-burn conditions. It was reported that the ID and CD periods
were shortened and advanced by the 50% mass fraction burned by the
hydrogen addition and thus the methanol direct-injection was much
more suitable than the methanol port-injection.
Yilmaz and Taştan [41] studied the addition of hydrogen on
methanol-gasoline blend in an SI engine. They investigated methanol-
gasoline blends (5%, 10%, and 15% of methanol in volume) and
hydrogen ratio (3%, 6%, 9%, 12%, and 15% in volume) under idle, 50%,
and 100% engine loads at λ = 1 conditions. However, various lambda
values (λ = 0.8, λ = 1, λ = 1.2) and the hydrogen energy substitute rate
(HES) method that was constituted by 5% of the total input fuel energy
and partial engine loads, such as 25Nm, 50 Nm, 75Nm, and 100 Nm
have not been investigated with fueled methanol-gasoline (20% meth­
anol in volume). In this respect, the author [42] presented a primer
study about the effects of hydrogen addition on performance, combus­
tion, and emission in an SI engine fueled with methanol-gasoline direct-
injection.
According to the literature, it is obvious that the addition of meth­
anol causes some inadequacies in an internal combustion engine. Thus,
hydrogen enrichment can be applied to overcome the deficiencies of the
methanol addition. Therefore, the addition of methanol and hydrogen is
suitable to investigate together in the SI engine because they compen­
sate each other’s weak points. Although there is a lot of valuable
research that has been carried out on alcohol-gas-gasoline blends in the
literature, as referred to above, researchers have not treated hydrogen/
methanol/gasoline blends in much detail under various lambda and
engine load values. Therefore, the objectives of this experimental study
were to investigate the effect of hydrogen (5% rate of HES) and meth­
anol (M20) on engine performance, combustion, and emission charac­
teristics in terms of various lambda values (0.8, 1, and 1.2) and engine
loads (25Nm, 50Nm, 75Nm, and 100Nm, 100%). In this respect, the
BTE, BSFC, ID, CD, CPmax, and HRRmax values, EGT, CO, HC, CO2, NO
emissions, and optimum BSFC-NO relationship were investigated care­
fully. Thus, the present study is expected to provide fundamental
knowledge for further research on fuel blends, performance, combus­
tion, and emission optimization of hydrogen/methanol/gasoline in a
ternary fuel mode.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Engine setup, test conditions, and procedure
The experiments were performed in the Engine Laboratory of the
Mechanical Engineering Department at Erciyes University. In this
experimental study, a four-stroke, direct-injected SI gasoline engine,
3
Fuel 297 (2021) 120732
Ford brand, MHV418 model engine with 1.756 L, 77 kW, four-cylinder,
and naturally aspirated was used. The technical properties of the test
engine are given in Table 1.
The test engine was coupled with an SAJ SE 150 eddy-current type
dynamometer that measured the engine torque and speed values. The
changing of the crank angle position was measured with an Atek brand
ARC S 50A model encoder. A PCB 113B22 piezoelectric pressure sensor,
an Alicat brand MCE series gas flow meter, and a Krohne brand Optimass
3000 model liquid flow meter were used for measuring the cylinder
pressure, hydrogen flow, and liquid fuel flow, respectively. In addition,
CO, CO2, O2, HC, and NO emissions were measured by a Bosch brand
BEA 60 model emission gas analyser. Table 2 demonstrates the technical
details of these components that measure range and sensitivity. Overall,
the experimental system details, such as the engine setup and compo­
nents are given in Fig. 1.
The engine components are shown in order by numbers: 1. A four-
stroke gasoline engine, 2. Eddy-current dynamometer, 3. Intake mani­
fold, 4. Intake throttle valve, 5. Engine control unit (ECU), 6. Spark
timing control unit, 7. Cylinder pressure sensor, 9. Fuel flow meter, 10.
Fuel tank, 11. Fuel injector, 12. Data logger for combustion system, 13.
Amplifier, 14. Computer for combustion analyses, 15. Exhaust gas
analyzer, 16. Exhaust manifold, 17. Radiator, 18. Data logger for
dynamometer, 19. Computer for engine performance, 20. Flame
arrestor, 21. Manuel sensitive hydrogen valve, 22. Hydrogen flow meter,
23. Hydrogen filter, 24. Regulator, and 25. Hydrogen cylinder.
This study especially focused on the effect of hydrogen addition in a
methanol-gasoline blend on the engine performance, combustion, and
emission characteristics at various lambda values and engine loads. The
experiments were conducted with pure gasoline (G100), a methanol-
gasoline blend (M20), and a hydrogen-methanol-gasoline (M20 + H2)
blend with various lambda and different engine load values at 2000 rpm
constant engine speed. A constant engine speed of 2000 rpm was chosen
because the maximum average performance of the engine was observed
at this speed [41]. In addition, this value was used for the same engine in
another study [35]. Thus, the engine tests were performed at 2000 rpm
engine speed, which could assume the typical engine speed of normal
city traffic conditions. In this engine speed, the maximum engine torque
values were observed between 101.5 Nm and 120.9 Nm that changed
depending on the test fuel types and lambda values at full engine loads.
In this respect, the variation of engine performance and exhaust emis­
sion parameters at full load were separately shown in Table 5. Conse­
quently, the experimental results were presented at 25 Nm, 50 Nm, 75
Nm, and 100 Nm values for observing partial loads at Figures.
The engine was worked without any load until it achieved a steady-
state condition. Before each test fuel, the engine was operated a while
without load to ensure cleaning previous test fuel in the pipeline. After
the engine warmed, the fuel flow rates of hydrogen and methanol-
gasoline blend were set to occur so that the hydrogen energy substi­
tute rate (HES) was obtained at 5%. The HES is detailed in the param­
eters section. At the same time, the throttle position was slightly
adjusted to obtain the lambda values of 0.8, 1, and 1.2, for all test fuels,
respectively. The engine BTE, BSFC, combustion analysis, and exhaust
Table 1
The properties of the test engine.
Brand and Model Ford MVH418
Engine type Four-stroke, Spark Ignition (SI)
Number of Cylinders 4
Cylinder volume, cm3 1796
Bore - Stroke, mm-mm 80.6–88
Compression ratio 10:1
Max. engine speed, rpm 5950
Max. engine torque, Nm 153 (4000 rpm)
Max. engine power, kW 77
Cooling system Water-cooled
Fuel system Multi-port fuel injection
S. Sarıkoç Fuel 297 (2021) 120732

Table 2
Technical properties of the components. Pe = T(2πN/60) × 10− 3
(2)

Components Measure Range Sensitivity Above, T and N represent brake torque (in Nm) and engine speed (in
Eddy-Current Dynamometer (SAJ SE 150) 150 kW/8000 ± 0.25% r/min), respectively.
rpm
ṁfuel
Piezoelectric Pressure Sensor (PCB 0–5000 PSI ± 1% BSFC = (3)
113B22) Pe
Digital Rotary Encoder (Atek ARC S 50) 0–6000 ± 0.01 rpm
where, BSFC is obtained in g/kWh.
Liquid flow meter (Krohne Optimass 1.2–130 kg/h ± 0.1%
3000) The quantity of hydrogen was adjusted as the energy rate that cor­
Gas flow meter (Alicat MCE) 0–20 slpm ±0.6% of responds to total input fuel energy instead of the hydrogen substitute
reading rate of 5%. Similar definitions exist in the literature [2,23,28]. The
Exhaust gas analyzer range (Bosch BEA 60) hydrogen energy substitute rate (HES) is described as presented in Eq.
CO2, % v/v 0 – 18 %vol 0.01% vol
CO, % v/v 0 – 10 %vol 0.001% vol
(4):
O2, % v/v 0–22 %vol 0.01% vol ṁH2 .LHVH2
HC, ppm 0–9999 1 ppm HES(%) = × 100 (4)
NO, ppm 0–5000 ppm 1 ppm
ṁH2 .LHVH2 + ṁfuel .LHVfuel
Lambda 0.5–1.8 0.1%
where, ṁH2 and ṁfuel express the mass flow rates of hydrogen and
liquid fuel (gasoline or methanol-gasoline blend) in g/h, respectively.
emission characteristics (EGT, CO, HC, CO2, and NO) were investigated LHVH2 and LHVfuel are terms that represent the lower heating value of
in terms of five different engine loads (25 Nm, 50 Nm, 75 Nm, 100 Nm, hydrogen and fuel in MJ/kg, respectively.
and 100%) and three lambda values (0.8, 1, and 1.2) for all test fuels. The mass flow rate of the methanol-gasoline blend and hydrogen
were arranged to supply a provided HES of 5%. At the same time, the
2.2. Test fuels throttle was precisely calibrated for each test fuel to provide a constant
engine torque and lambda value.
In this study, pure commercial gasoline, 95 octane number fuel, was The heat release rate (HRR) was derived by the first law of ther­
purchased from the local gas station as the main fuel. The methanol, modynamics to explain how fuel chemical energy turns into mechanical
99.5% analytical grade, was purchased from a local supplier and was work during the combustion process according to the crank angle using
mixed with gasoline at room temperature. It was observed that no phase Eq. (5). In this respect, the heat losses of the cylinder wall were ignored
separation occurred in the methanol-gasoline blend until the end of the during the calculations.
tests. A high purity industrial hydrogen gas, 99.99%, was added to the dQnet γ dV 1 dP
methanol-gasoline blend as a gaseous fuel. The most important prop­ = P + V , (J/deg CA) (5)
dθ γ − 1 dθ γ − 1 dθ
erties of each main fuel are presented in Table 3.
where, the end of the combustion of energy transfer from the cyl­
2.3. Parameters inder wall and combustion chamber wall is defined as dQnet (J). In

The BTE is a good indicator of how much fuel chemical energy is

Table 3
converted into mechanical energy by an engine [31]. In this respect, BTE
Properties of the test fuels [27,31,43,44].
can be calculated by the total output work of the engine divided by the
total chemical energy of the input fuel as follows [45]: Fuel type Gasoline Methanol Methanol- Hydrogen
Gasoline
⎛ ⎞
Pe Formula C8H15 CH3OH CH3OH– C8H15 H2
BTE = ⎝ ⎠ × 100 (1) Density (kg/m3) 715–765 792 776.6–786.6 0.0837
LHV.ṁfuel
LHV(MJ/kg) 43 20.05 38.41 120
Octane number 95 111 98.2 130
where, the brake thermal efficiency, the lower heating value and the Oxygen content by – 50 10 –
mass (%)
mass of the test fuels are expressed by BTE (in %), LHV (in MJ/kg), and Latent heat (kJ/kg) 307 1147 475 461
ṁfuel (in g/h), respectively. Laminar flame speed 33–44 52 36.8–45.6 210
Pe (in kW) the total output work i.e. brake power is defined as (cm/s)
follows:

Fig. 1. The engine test system.

4
S. Sarıkoç
addition, the specific heat ratio, cylinder volume, crank angle, and
cylinder pressure terms are referred to as γ, V (m3), P (bar), and θ (oCA),
respectively.
2.4. Uncertainty analysis
In this study, uncertainty analysis, which was presented by Kline and
McClintock, [46] was carried out to the experimental results in order to
calculate the uncertainties of the engine test system. This method is one
of the most precise methods of estimating uncertainty, as given in the
below equation:
[( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ]12
∂R ∂R ∂R
wR = w + w +⋯+ w (6)
∂x1 1 ∂x2 2 ∂xn n
R is a given function that has independent variables, such as x1, x2,x3,
…, xn. These independent variables have uncertainties as follows w1,w2,
…,wn, respectively. As a result, uncertainty is obtained by wR, which is
called the root mean square, as well.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Engine performance characteristics
The engine performance characteristics of the hydrogen-methanol-
gasoline blends, including the BTE and the BSFC, were compared to
each other according to different engine conditions, i.e., under various
lambda and engine load values, as given in Figs. 2 and 3.
3.1.1. The brake thermal efficiency
With respect to the obtained results from the experiments, Fig. 2
presents the BTE of test fuels at various lambda values and engine loads.
Generally, the BTE of the engine increased with engine load increases for
all test fuels. In addition, the BTE of the engine also increased when the
lambda values increased in increment from 0.8 to 1.2. It is obvious in
Fig. 2 that the highest BTE occurred when at 100% engine load and λ =
1.2 test conditions for all test fuels, except the M20 test fuel.
Furthermore, the highest BTE was achieved with the G100 test fuel,
which was found to be 36.33% at λ = 1.2, and 100% engine load values.
However, the addition of methanol in gasoline caused a slight increase
of 0.07% in efficiency according to an average of five loads. Moreover, a
significant increase in the BSFC values was obtained, which was an
average of 11.98% growth. It is possible that these results are due to the
lower LHV of the methanol. The finding that the methanol decreased the
Fig. 2. The thermal efficiency of test fuels at various lambda values and engine loads.
5
Fuel 297 (2021) 120732
thermal efficiency of the engine due to the lower LHV value is consistent
with the following reference in the literature [31]. It has been reported
that BSFC increases with the increase of alcohol rate in fuel blend
because of the low calorific value of alcohols. In contrast to this study,
Ref. [47] reported that the extra oxygen content of alcohols can ensure
better combustion and increase thermal efficiency. Furthermore, Wang
et al. [48] reported that the addition of methanol gain increased the
thermal efficiency by 30% than gasoline so that higher fuel consumption
was offset. Although the methanol has approximately half the LHV of the
gasoline, the average BTE value slightly increased by 0.07% for the
average of five loads.
The most important reason for this may be due to the thermo-
physical and chemical properties of the methanol. In particular, the
most important properties of methanol, such as high octane number,
oxygen content, LFS, and latent heat of vaporization may have had
better combustion from the improved combustion process. In the liter­
ature, there are results that support this finding. Ref. [48,49], reported
that combustion characteristics were improved by these properties.
Additionally, Chen et al. [23] reported that the addition of methanol
increased the maximum cylinder pressure and burning rate, shortened
the ID and CD periods, and improved the phases of combustion.
Furthermore, Wang et al. [48] demonstrated that higher octane number
and heat of vaporization considerably affected the engine anti-knock
ability, which led to the proper combustion process. Thus, BTE can be
increased. Despite the lower LHV of the methanol, it can be concluded
that this slight increase in average value of the BTE could be due to the
higher octane number, LFS, and oxygen content of the methanol, which
improved the combustion process. It is possible, therefore, that a dra­
matic decrease in the BTE values was compensated by these properties.
The hydrogen was added to the M20 blend to prevent negative ef­
fects on the BTE due to the low calorific value of the methanol. With the
addition of hydrogen in the M20 fuel blend, the highest engine efficiency
was obtained at the rate of 35.79% at λ = 1.2, and 100% engine load.
This efficiency value occurred 0.5% lower than the M20 fuel blend.
However, the hydrogen addition in the M20 blend caused an average
increase of 0.61% in efficiency in five loads. Properties of hydrogen,
such as high LHV, LFS, and easy self-ignition [50] positively affected the
combustion process. It especially, caused an increase in efficiency
compared to the M20 blend at low engine load. This result is in agree­
ment with Ref. [4], which reported high flame velocity of hydrogen
enhanced combustion rate and so an increase was observed in the
thermal efficiency. Also, high diffusivity of hydrogen improved the ho­
mogeneity so that ID decreased [51].
Nevertheless, a decrease was observed in efficiency at high engine
S. Sarıkoç
Fig. 3. BSFC of test fuels at various lambda values and engine loads.
loads. The reason for this may be the explosion of the hydrogen-air mix
in the intake manifold due to a large amount of hydrogen introduced in
the intake manifold at high engine loads. Excess hydrogen leads to a
flame flashback and knocking in the engine. These undesirable situa­
tions may have decreased the BTE. However, the BTE value generally
had an improved trend with hydrogen addition. The effects of hydrogen
addition on engine thermal efficiency are consistent with results by [35]
and [40] in the literature.
3.1.2. Brake specific fuel consumption
A decreasing trend in the BSFC values was observed with an increase
of the engine loads for all test fuels. In addition, the BSFC values
decreased when the lambda values increased from 0.8 to 1.2. According
to the results, the highest BSFC values were obtained at λ = 0.8 for all
test fuels, while the lowest values were obtained at λ = 1.2. This is due to
the λ = 0.8 value, which is a rich air–fuel mixture, whereas λ = 1.2 is a
lean air–fuel mixture. On the other hand, the highest BSFC values
occurred for all fuels at 25 Nm engine load, while generally the lowest
BSFC values were observed for all fuels at 100% engine load. The
experimental results showed that the G100 test fuel exhibited the lowest
BSFC values according to each engine load and lambda value.
In this respect, the lowest BSFC value was obtained at 234.29 g/kWh
for the G100 fuel at 100 Nm and λ = 1.2. However, the highest BSFC
values were obtained for the M20 fuel blend at each load and lambda
value. Therefore, the highest BSFC value was found to be 584.91 g/kWh
for the M20 fuel blend at 25 Nm and λ = 0.8. Moreover, a significant
increase in the average values of the BSFC was 11.98% higher compared
to the G100 fuel. This can be explained by the lower LHV of the meth­
anol. Thus, the lower LHV value of the methanol decreased the LHV
value of the fuel blend, so that the engine consumed more fuel to achieve
the same power output. Similar results have been observed by re­
searchers in the literature [32,49,52]. It is obvious in Fig. 3 that the
highest BSFC values were obtained for the M20 blend at all engine loads
and lambda values. This finding is in good agreement with the results of
other studies, in which a strong relationship between BSFC and LHV has
been reported in the literature [32,41].
Higher fuel consumption of the M20 blend due to the lower calorific
value of the methanol can be overcome by the hydrogen (120 MJ/kg)
[45] that has an approximately six times higher calorific value than the
methanol (20 MJ/kg) [31]. In this respect, hydrogen enrichment was
applied to the M20 test fuel. The highest BSFC value was obtained at
547.92 g/kWh with the addition of hydrogen in the M20 fuel blend at 25
Nm and λ = 0.8, while the lowest BSFC value was 249.12 g/kWh at
100% engine load and λ = 1.2. Furthermore, the BSFC values were
6
Fuel 297 (2021) 120732
decreased by the hydrogen addition compared to the M20 fuel at all
engine load and lambda values. The average reduction of five loads was
4.07%. This decrease may be due to properties of the hydrogen, such as
higher LHV, diffusion coefficient, and LFS improving the combustion
process. Thus, the BSFC values exhibited a decreasing trend. The find­
ings that the hydrogen improved the combustion characteristics of the
engine and led to a decrease in the BSFC is consistent with the following
references in the literature Ref. [35] and [53].
3.2. Combustion characteristics
The combustion characteristics of the test fuels were compared with
each other under lambda values from 0.8 to 1.2 and engine loads from
25 Nm to full load, as given in Fig. 4 and Table 4, respectively.
Generally, the ID and CD periods tended to decrease with an
increasing engine load. However, both of them tended to increase when
the lambda value increased from 0.8 to 1.2 lambda. According to the 25
Nm engine load, the highest CPmax and HRRmax values obtained were
16.82 bar and 11.75 J/CA for the M20 + H2 fuel blend at 25 Nm and λ =
0.8, respectively. However, the lowest values were 13.09 bar and 7.5 J/
CA for the G100 test fuel at 25 Nm and λ = 1.2. Similar with the 25 Nm
engine load, the highest CPmax and HRRmax values obtained were 24.14
bar and 18.12 J/CA for the M20 + H2 fuel blend at 50 Nm and λ = 0.8,
respectively. However, the lowest values were 21.68 bar and 13.08 J/CA
for the G100 test fuel at 25 Nm and λ = 1.2. It is obvious from the results
that the CPmax and HRRmax values increased with the increased engine
load from 25 Nm to 50 Nm for the same test fuels. In contrast to 25 Nm
and 50 Nm engine loads, the highest CPmax and HRRmax values were
observed for the M20 fuel blend were 32.39 bar and 25.28 J/CA at 75
Nm, respectively. Interestingly, the lowest CPmax value obtained was
28.96 bar for the M20 + H2 fuel blend at λ = 1.2, while the lowest
HRRmax value was 18.85 J/CA for the G100 test fuel at λ = 1.2. More­
over, the highest CPmax value at 100Nm was 38.79 bar and λ = 1.2
lambda for G100 and the highest HRRmax value was obtained for the
M20 fuel blend at 31.42 J/CA and λ = 0.8. However, the lowest CPmax
value was obtained with the M20 + H2 fuel mixture at 36.58 bar and λ =
1.2 value and the lowest HRRmax value was obtained for the G100 test
fuel at 26.03 J/CA and λ = 1.2. The highest CPmax and HRRmax values
obtained were 46.86 bar and 41.02 J/CA for the M20 + H2 fuel blend at
full (100%) engine load and λ = 0.8, respectively. However, the lowest
values were achieved at 36.73 bar and 25.75 J/CA for the G100 test fuel
at λ = 1.2. Additionally, the highest CPmax and HRRmax values consid­
erably increased with the methanol and hydrogen addition at full load
and all lambda values. According to obtained results, hydrogen addition
S. Sarıkoç
Fig. 4. The cylinder pressure and net heat release rate of test fuels at various lambda values and engine loads.
had favorable effects on the highest CPmax and HRRmax values at 25 Nm,
50 Nm, and full engine loads, whereas it was not sufficiently effective at
the highest CPmax and HRRmax values at 75 Nm and 100 Nm engine
loads.
A possible explanation for these results may be that a large quantity
of hydrogen caused a negative impact on the highest CPmax and HRRmax
values at engine loads at 75 Nm and 100 Nm because of the explosion in
the intake manifold and the knocking effects in the cylinder might have
had an adverse effect. Saravanan et al. [54] reported that when oper­
ating the engine beyond 75% loads, a drastic knocking occurred because
of a sudden combustion of hydrogen at high loads. Thus, the maximum
values of CP and HRR were negatively affected by the addition of
hydrogen at the high engine loads at the 75 Nm and 100Nm values.
Overall, the results obtained show that the highest CPmax and HRRmax
values are highly affected by the engine load and lambda values.
The ID and CD of the periods were shortened by the addition of
7
Fuel 297 (2021) 120732
methanol compared to the G100 fuel. The average values of ID were
decreased by the addition of methanol and caused a shortening by
6.45%. However, the average values of CD, CPmax, and HRRmax were
slightly increased by rates of 0.85%, 1.66%, and 2.32%, respectively.
The obtained results showed that the higher LFS of the methanol could
be the most important factor for this shortening. This outcome is in a
good agreement with the findings of other researchers. For example,
[31] indicated that methanol considerably decreased ID.
Furthermore, the combustion phases were substantially affected by
the addition of hydrogen. It was observed that the ID and CD values were
shorter than with the M20 blend, while the CPmax and HRRmax values
were higher. Thus, the average values of ID and CD were substantially
decreased by the addition of hydrogen that resulted in a reduction of
21.10% and 6.93% compared to the M20 test fuel. Both of them shorten
with hydrogen addition due to the very low ignition energy and high LFS
of hydrogen [38]. A similar result is available in another study [51]. On
S. Sarıkoç Fuel 297 (2021) 120732

Table 4
The combustion characteristics of test fuels at various lambda values and engine loads.
25 Nm Load 50 Nm Load

Lambda (λ) SoI bTDC ID CD CPmax HRRmax (J/ SoI bTDC ID CD CPmax HRRmax (J/
(◦ CA) (◦ CA) (◦ CA) (bar) ◦
CA) (◦ CA) (◦ CA) (◦ CA) (bar) ◦
CA)

G100 0.8 20 16.5 18 15.98 10.66 17 14 18 22.95 16.94

1 23 19.5 19.5 14.78 9.30 20 16 18 22.80 15.73
1.2 28 25.5 23.5 13.09 7.50 24 18 21 21.68 13.08
M20 0.8 20 18.5 19.5 14.42 9.99 17 13 16.5 23.41 17.30
1 23 20.5 19 14.59 9.36 18 15 17.5 23.47 16.35
1.2 27 24 22.5 13.52 7.86 25 19.5 20 22.83 14.03
M20 þ 0.8 17 14 22 16.82 11.75 15 12.5 16 24.14 18.12
H2 1 20 16.5 18 15.79 10.27 16 13.5 18.5 23.16 16.91
1.2 22 17 19 15.21 9.08 20 16.5 19 22.53 14.92

75 Nm Load 100 Nm Load

Lambda SoI bTDC ID CD CPmax HRRmax (J/ SoI bTDC ID CD CPmax HRRmax (J/
(λ) (◦ CA) (◦ CA) (◦ CA) (bar) ◦
CA) (◦ CA) (◦ CA) (◦ CA) (bar) ◦
CA)
G100 0.8 15 16.5 16.5 30.79 24.14 13 11 15.5 38.27 30.24
1 20 17.5 17.5 30.17 21.76 15 13 17 37.92 28.39
1.2 23 19 19 30.76 18.85 20 27 18 38.79 26.03
M20 0.8 15 15.5 15.5 32.39 25.28 12 10 15 38.44 31.42
1 17 17 17 31.16 22.70 15 13.5 16.5 36.27 27.10
1.2 20 19 19 30.69 20.15 20 17 18 37.19 25.82
M20 þ 0.8 12 10 14 30.09 24.63 11 10 12.5 38.32 30.68
H2 1 14 11.5 14.5 29.37 21.68 12 11 13 36.63 28.28
1.2 17 13.5 17.5 28.96 19.49 15 13 15.5 36.58 26.13

100% Load
Lambda (λ) SoI bTDC (◦ CA) ID (◦ CA) CD (◦ CA) CPmax (bar) HRRmax (J/◦ CA)
G100 0.8 10 11.5 12 41.64 39.06
1 11 12.5 12.5 38.87 33.19
1.2 18 16.5 15.5 36.73 25.75
M20 0.8 10 9 13.5 45.34 39.67
1 12 11 15 41.36 34.51
1.2 17 13.5 17 39.27 27.81
M20 þ H2 0.8 8 7 13.5 46.86 41.02
1 9 8 14 43.20 35.93
1.2 13 10 16.5 40.89 28.97

Table 5
The variation of engine performance and exhaust emission parameters at full load.
Full engine load Lambda (λ) Load (Nm) BTE (%) BSFC (g/kWh) EGT (◦ C) CO (g/kWh) HC (g/kWh) CO2 (g/kWh) NO (g/kWh)

G100 0.8 116.5 27.24 307.32 547 256.757 0.596596 644.221 1.659
1 113.1 33.60 249.15 593 16.806 0.426426 872.713 15.847
1.2 101.9 36.33 230.45 529 2.478 0.422422 734.348 19.185
M20 0.8 116.9 27.67 338.78 539 252.771 0.682682 644.221 0.5442
1 113.4 34.71 270.00 587 7.721 0.422422 865.096 16.656
1.2 101.5 35.97 260.56 537 2.586 0.386386 740.695 18.627
M20 þ H2 0.8 120.9 27.79 325.73 568 240.848 0.458458 616.928 2.050
1 118.1 34.51 262.33 612 14.903 0.322322 842.882 16.955
1.2 105.8 35.79 253.20 562 2.370 0.298298 724.193 18.064

the other hand, the average CPmax and HRRmax values increased by rates
of 2.02% and 4.13%, respectively. This increasing trend was also
explained by Yu et al. [28]. The reason for this finding can be explained
by the fast LFS of hydrogen, which speeds up combustion and improves
the amount of heat release. Meng et al.[39] reported that the peak cyl­
inder pressure and heat release rate increased with the addition of
hydrogen. Nevertheless, the hydrogen addition exhibited the highest
CPmax and HRRmax values at low loads (25Nm and 50 Nm) and full load,
while it did not show the same performance at medium loads. Consid­
ering these results, the most important reason for this change in the ID,
CD, CPmax, and HRRmax values can be the high diffusion coefficient,
calorific value, and the LFS of hydrogen. These results are consistent
with other research findings in the literature [28,39].
3.3. Emission characteristics
The EGT, CO, HC, CO2, and NO emission characteristics were
investigated with different lambda and engine load values in terms of
the hydrogen-methanol-gasoline blends, as presented in Fig. 5. to Fig. 9,
respectively.
3.3.1. EGT characteristics
The highest EGT values were obtained at 100% engine load with λ =
1, while the lowest was seen at 25 Nm and λ = 0.8. The EGT values
exhibited an increasing trend with increase of the engine load. This may
be due to the BSFC values increase with the increase of the engine load.
In this respect, a higher amount of fuel consumed in the combustion
chamber at the higher engine loads leads to an increase in cylinder
temperature. This outcome is compatible with Ref. [20], which reported
that engine loads considerably affect the BSFC value. In addition, the
higher engine loads may have increased the EGT due to a more ho­
mogenous fuel air–fuel charge. It was reported that homogeneity of the
charge mixture leads to an increase at the end of combustion tempera­
ture [55]. At all engine loads, the highest EGT was seen at λ = 1. This is
due to the stoichiometric rate leading to a full combustion process,
which increases EGT.

8
S. Sarıkoç
Fig. 5. The EGT of test fuels at various lambda values and engine loads.
The average EGT value of all engine loads increased by 0.92% when
methanol was added to the G100 fuel. Although methanol has a higher
heat of vaporization, its properties, such as high octane number, oxygen
content, and LFS may have improved the combustion process. Thus,
these properties may have slightly increased the EGT after combustion.
In this respect, Li et al. [31] indicated that methanol leads to an
advanced combustion phase due to the higher LFS compared to gasoline.
In addition, the higher BSFC value of the M20 blend may have led to an
increase in the combustion chamber temperature. Yilmaz and Atmanli
[20] support this result. They reported that the cylinder temperature
increased due to the amount of fuel in the combustion chamber.
The hydrogen addition caused an increased rate of 2.24% in the
average EGT values for all lambda and engine loads compared to the
G100 fuel. However, the hydrogen addition led to an increased rate of
1.38% in EGT compared to the M20 fuel. This can be explained by the
hydrogen properties, such as higher LHV, LFS, and diffusion coefficient,
which may have improved the combustion process. The increase in EGT
is strongly related to the high end of the combustion temperature, which
was increased by hydrogen due to improved combustion. This result is
supported by ref. [34] in the literature that reported that the higher LHV
of hydrogen ensures more heat and quickly increases the temperature of
Fig. 6. The CO emissions of test fuels at various lambda values and engine loads.
9
Fuel 297 (2021) 120732
the cylinder.
3.3.2. CO characteristics
The CO values are more affected by the lambda values rather than
the engine loads. It was determined that the highest CO values were at λ
= 0.8 for all test fuels, while the lowest was at λ = 1.2. It is obvious in
Fig. 6 that the rich air–fuel mixture dramatically increased the formation
of the CO emission. A similar result was reported in the literature about
how a rich fuel mixture and lack of oxygen leads to an increase in the
formation of CO emission [20].
The average values of CO emission for the M20 test fuel increased by
a rate of 0.30% and 11.04% at λ = 0.8 and λ = 1.2, while it decreased by
14.62% at λ = 1, respectively. Furthermore, the addition of methanol
decreased by a rate of 1.09% for the average values of CO emissions at
all lambda and engine loads. The reason for this decreasing trend may
have occurred due to the M20 test fuel, which led to an improvement in
the combustion process, so that the formation of CO emission decreased.
Furthermore, it is obvious that the rich air–fuel mixture slightly
increased (0.30%) the CO emission compared to the G100 fuel, whereas
the lean air–fuel mixture increased (11.04%) dramatically. This slight
increase in CO emission may be incomplete combustion, where the rich
S. Sarıkoç
air–fuel mixture cannot find enough oxidizer for the combustion. This is
supported by Ref. [55], which deduced that incomplete combustion
occurs when existing less oxygen and insufficient temperature leads to
an increase in the CO emissions. In addition, the lean air–fuel mixture
may have negatively affected the combustion process, due to the excess
air having caused incomplete combustion and so worsened the com­
bustion because the lean air–fuel mixture could have decreased the
combustion temperature. Li et al. [31] reported that a lower combustion
temperature leads to a higher CO emission level. Therefore, CO emission
was considerably increased at λ = 1.2. This finding agrees with
Ref. [38], which reported that an increase in excess air ratio raises the
CO emission because of the lean mixture condition. Therefore, this may
have caused incomplete combustion and so, CO emission increases. In
contrast to this, the CO emission values significantly decreased (14.62%)
at the stoichiometric rate.
The hydrogen addition to the M20 test fuel exhibited a decreased
rate of 4.57% and 8.62% at λ = 0.8 and λ = 1.2 in the average value of
CO emission, while a sharp increase was observed by a rate of 18.71% at
λ = 1. Furthermore, the addition of hydrogen caused a rate increase of
1.84% in the average value of the load and lambda values. High engine
loads led to a dramatic increasing trend at λ = 1. Therefore, the average
value of CO slightly increased for all lambda values. However, the
average values of CO considerably decreased at λ = 0.8 and λ = 1.2. This
can be explained by the important properties of hydrogen, which
improved the combustion process and prevented incomplete combus­
tion. Furthermore, the hydrogen accelerated the oxidation of CO to CO2
[34]. Thus, a significant decrease was observed in CO emission, except
at λ = 1. In addition, the fact that hydrogen is a carbon-free fuel may
have reduced CO emissions. This outcome is supported by the literature
findings by Yang and Ji [39], who reported that CO emission decreased
with an increasing rate of hydrogen.
3.3.3. HC characteristics
One of the parameters of flame penetration in the cylinder is HC
emission. The main reasons for the production of HC emissions are
because of incomplete fuel evaporation, crevice effect, and short flame
quenching distance [34]. HC emissions tend to decrease with increasing
engine load and lambda values. It was determined that the highest HC
values were obtained at λ = 0.8 for all test fuels, while the lowest values
were at λ = 1.2. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that HC emissions are highly
affected by lambda values. This can be explained by the fuel finding
enough oxygen atoms to oxidize the fuel molecules at λ = 1.2. Thus, the
amount of HC emission can be reduced by an excess air ratio.
Fig. 7. The HC emissions of test fuels at various lambda values and engine loads.
10
Fuel 297 (2021) 120732
The average values of HC emission for the M20 test fuel increased by
a rate of 4.08% and 3.94% at λ = 0.8 and λ = 1.2, respectively compared
to the G100 fuel, while it decreased by a rate of 1.23% at λ = 1.
Furthermore, the average value of HC increased by a rate of 2.26% at all
lambda values with the addition of methanol to the G100 fuel. This can
be explained by the fact that the higher BSFC value of the M20 test fuel
caused an increase in HC emissions. Additionally, the formation of HC
may have been affected by the incomplete combustion process due to the
high heat of vaporization of the methanol suddenly having decreased
the combustion chamber temperature.
The average value of HC for the M20 + H2 test fuel decreased by rates
of 15.49%, 11.50%, and 12.19% at the values of λ = 0.8, λ = 1, λ = 1.2,
respectively as compared to the M20 test fuel. In addition, the average
value of the HC significantly decreased by a rate of 13.06% at all lambda
values with the addition of hydrogen in the M20 test fuel. As seen in
Fig. 7, adding hydrogen to the M20 blend considerably affected the
reduction of HC emissions. This can be explained by the important
properties of hydrogen that improved the combustion process and so
prevented incomplete combustion. Thus, the HC emission values
significantly decreased with the addition of hydrogen. Similar results
can be found in the literature. For example, Yu et al. [31] reported that
the low ignition energy and high LFS of hydrogen increased combustion
so that it accelerated the HC oxidation process. In addition, Meng et al.
[34] suggested that the hydrogen properties of high diffusivity and
lower ignition energy led to a decrease in the HC emission because it
prevented slow-burning and incomplete combustion.
3.3.4. CO2 characteristics
As seen in Fig. 8, the CO2 values are highly affected by lambda
values. The highest CO2 values were observed at λ = 1 at all loads and
test fuels, while the lowest was obtained at λ = 0.8. This can be
explained by the rich air–fuel mixture, which may have reduced the
formation of CO2 emission because the incomplete combustion accel­
erated the reaction that took place in the direction of CO. In addition, the
stoichiometric combustion ratio achieved complete combustion, which
led to the highest amount of CO2.
The M20 test fuel average values of CO2 slightly increased by a rate
of 0.17%, and 0.33% at λ = 0.8, and λ = 1.2 compared to the G100 fuel,
while it slightly decreased by 0.03% at λ = 1. Furthermore, the average
value of CO2 found with the addition of methanol to gasoline increased
to a rate of 0.155% at all lambda values. Overall, the CO2 formation was
slightly increased by the addition of methanol to the G100 fuel. This
trend may have been caused by the M20 test fuel, which supplied more
S. Sarıkoç
Fig. 8. The CO2 emissions of test fuels at various lambda values and engine loads.
fuel in the combustion chamber due to higher BSFC than the G100 fuel.
In addition, the higher oxygen and octane number of the methanol may
have increased CO2 formation by improving the combustion process.
The M20 + H2 test fuel average values of CO2 decreased by a rate of
4.58%, 3.83%, and 3.29% at the values of λ = 0.8, λ = 1, λ = 1.2,
respectively compared to the M20 fuel. In addition, the average values of
CO2 decreased by a rate of 3.90% at all lambda values with the addition
of hydrogen. It is obvious that the hydrogen addition substantially
affected the reduction of CO2 emissions. This can be explained by the
reduction of the M20 test fuel consumption when the hydrogen was
added. Thus, the fuel delivered to the combustion chamber had an input
energy rate of 95% and 5% for the M20 and hydrogen, respectively. The
formation of CO and CO2 emissions may have been decreased by the
hydrogen, which is a carbon-free fuel. This result is consistent with ref.
[39], which reported that hydrogen is a carbon-free fuel so it does not
produce CO2 emissions when combusted.
3.3.5. NO characteristics
The NOx component is to a great extent constituted from NO in
volume which is 90% percent [56]. The formation of NO is highly
dependent on the parameters of in-cylinder temperature, chemical re­
action speed, oxygen content, and combustion duration [57].
Fig. 9. The NO emissions of test fuels at various lambda values and engine loads.
11
Fuel 297 (2021) 120732
Furthermore, the formation rate of NO exponentially depends on tem­
perature [58]. It is obvious in Fig. 9 that the NO formation tends to
increase with the increase of engine load and lambda values. Generally,
it is seen that the lowest NO values occurred at λ = 0.8 and the highest
values were at λ = 1.2. Moreover, the lowest NO value was obtained for
the M20 test fuel at 25Nm according to the other engine loads, while the
highest was for the G100 fuel at 100 Nm and λ = 1.2. Except for the
engine load of 25 Nm, the highest values of NO generally were obtained
with the G100 fuel for all lambda values. The values of NO usually
tended to decrease with the addition of methanol into the gasoline.
However, the NO values tended to increase with the addition of
hydrogen to the M20 test fuel.
The M20 test fuel average values of NO significantly decreased by
rates of 27.15%, 4.89%, and 3.41% for the values of λ = 0.8, λ = 1, λ =
1.2 , respectively compared to the G100 fuel. In addition, the average
value of NO decreased by a rate of 11.82% for all lambda values with the
addition of methanol. The most important reason for this decrease in the
NO value may be the methanol properties, such as high heat of evapo­
ration temperature, oxygen content, and LFS. In this respect, the high
heat of evaporation may have led to the heat being drawn from the
combustion chamber and it may have caused a dramatic drop of the
cylinder temperature [31]. Furthermore, the oxygen content of the
S. Sarıkoç
methanol is approximately 50% by mass [27] and that increased the
oxygen ratio of the M20 fuel blend. Even though the methanol improved
the combustion process, the extra oxygen content negatively affected the
formation of NO [53]. The formation of the NOx reactions between the
oxygen and nitrogen molecules is accelerated by the higher end of the
combustion temperature [55]. Furthermore, the rich oxygen content
and long reaction period leads to the formation of NOx emission [34].
Additionally, the higher LFS value of methanol over gasoline shortened
the ID and CD parameters and caused a shorter combustion period. Thus,
this short combustion duration positively affected the formation of NO.
The properties of methanol significantly reduced NO formation. It can
be concluded that the formation of NO emission was highly affected by
the mentioned combustion parameters of in-cylinder temperature, ox­
ygen content, and combustion duration. While the M20 fuel blend had a
higher BSFC value than gasoline, the NO values were not increased
significantly. Thus, the result supports the advantages of methanol.
The average values of NO for the M20 + H2 test fuel increased by
rates of 84.04%, 9.51%, and 1.49% at the values of λ = 0.8, λ = 1, λ =
1.2, respectively, compared to the M20 blend. It is clear from this result
that the average values of NO tend to decrease with increasing lambda.
The increase in the average values of the NO emission were obtained at
λ = 0.8 where it was highest in the rich air–fuel mixture, while it was the
lowest in the lean air–fuel mixture (λ = 1.2). In addition, the average
values of NO increased by a rate of 31.68% with the addition of
hydrogen at all lambda values when compared to the M20 blend. The
average values of NO increased by a rate of 4.78% when compared to the
G100 fuel while the lowest value of NO was obtained at 25 Nm, the
highest NO value occurred at 100 Nm. Moreover, the lowest values of
NO were obtained in all loads at λ = 0.8, while the highest was generally
at λ = 1.2, except for the 25 Nm engine load. The addition of hydrogen
considerably affected the generation of NO emissions. Although the ID
and CD parameters were shortened due to the higher laminar and
diffusion rate of hydrogen compared to the G100 fuel, the values of NO
were dramatically increased by the addition of hydrogen to the M20
blend. This substantial increase seemed to be associated with the
hydrogen properties of high LHV, LFS, and diffusion coefficient.
The total test system uncertainty, calculated from the components
being measured in the test, was obtained at ± 2.826 by applying the root
mean square formula. The uncertainty was obtained by using the un­
certainty equations found in Ref.[59]. The engine uncertainties of the
test system, such as the brake torque, power, BSFC, BTE, and emissions
were computed as 0.217, 1.034, 2.622, 0.0008, and 0.001, respectively.
It is obvious that the calculated uncertainties of the test system ranged
from 0.001 to 2622. Furthermore, the total system uncertainty was
calculated as ± 2.826%. As a consequence, this value is lower than the
limit of the acceptable engineering error rate, which should be lower
than ± 5% [45]. Thus, it is seen that the uncertainty value of the
experimental system was achieved in good agreement with the literature
results [60,61]. The calculated uncertainties of the test system are pre­
sented in Table 6.
3.4. The BSFC and NO optimization of the test fuel
It was found that there is an exponential relationship between NO
and BSFC, as given in Fig. 10. This figure indicates the relationship
Table 6
The calculated uncertainties of the test system.
Calculated results Uncertainty (%)
Brake Torque 0.217
Brake Power 1.034
BSFC 2.622
BTE 0.0008
Emissions 0.001
Total System 2.826
12
Fuel 297 (2021) 120732
between fuel consumption and emission as well as the hydrogen and
methanol addition effects on the BSFC and NO emission of the test en­
gine at λ = 1 and λ = 1.2 values. NOx emission is one of the most crucial
emission parameters of exhaust emission in an internal combustion
engine due to the harmful effects on living organisms. It is strongly
dependent on the in-cylinder temperature, oxygen content, chemical
reaction speed, and combustion duration [57]. In addition, fuel con­
sumption and engine load also affect the formation of NO emissions.
In an engine test, it is desirable to minimize fuel consumption while
maximizing engine performance. In this respect, the intersection point
of the curves shown in Fig. 10 corresponds to optimum engine values. A
similar optimum point finding method exists in the literature in a
different area [62]. According to the results, the optimum load, NO, and
BSFC values are 71.59 Nm, 13.15 g/kWh, and 409.02 g/kWh for the
M20 test fuel at λ = 1, respectively. Increasing lambda from 1 to 1.2, the
optimum point considerably changed. It was found to be 74.55 Nm,
15.68 g/kWh, and 318.28 g/kWh for M20 test fuel at λ = 1.2, respec­
tively. The addition of hydrogen substantially decreased the optimum
BSFC values. The optimum point was obtained for the M20 + H2 test fuel
68.61 Nm, 13.23 g/kWh, and 320.33 g/kWh at λ = 1, respectively. In
addition, the optimum point was calculated as 72.87 Nm, 14.56 g/kWh,
and 290.54 g/kWh for the M20 + H2 test fuel at λ = 1.2, respectively. It
can be concluded from these results that engine experiments should be
conducted for engine loads between 68.61 Nm and 74.55 Nm for the
optimum BSFC and NO values. The best economic and environmental
optimum values can be suggested for the M20 + H2 test fuel at λ = 1, at
68.61 Nm engine load, 13. 23 g/kWh NO emission, and 320.33 g/kWh
BSFC.
4. Conclusions
This study examined the effects of hydrogen and methanol on an SI
engine. In this respect, the engine performance, combustion, and emis­
sion characteristics of the SI engine were investigated under different
fuel blends and engine test conditions. The experiments were performed
with methanol-gasoline (M20) and hydrogen-methanol-gasoline (5% of
the HES rate) blends at various engine loads (25 Nm, 50 Nm, 75 Nm, 100
Nm, and at 100% engine load), different lambda values (0.8, 1, and 1.2),
and a constant engine speed (2000 rpm). These findings ensure our
understanding of the performance, combustion, and emission charac­
teristics of how an SI engine is affected by hydrogen and methanol fuel
properties at various test conditions. The most important findings of this
investigation are summarized as follows:
• The BTE values increased when the engine loads and lambda values
increased from 25 Nm to 100% engine load, and 0.8 to 1.2,
respectively.
• The addition of methanol in the gasoline slightly decreased the BTE
by 0.07% over an average of five loads and the addition of hydrogen
in the methanol-gasoline blend increased the average value of BTE
by a rate of 0.61%.
• The average value of the BSFC was observed 11.98% higher for the
M20 test fuel than the gasoline. However, this value was decreased
by 4.07% with the addition of hydrogen in the methanol-gasoline
blend.
• It was observed that the BTE and BSFC values of LHV, LFS, octane
number, and oxygen content, were considerably affected by the
hydrogen and methanol fuel properties.
• The combustion characteristics improved after adding the hydrogen
and methanol, due to the higher flame velocity, which also consid­
erably affected the engine performance and emission characteristics.
• The ID period decreased by the addition of methanol, which caused
an average reduction rate of 6.45%, while the CD period led to a
slight increase rate of 0.85%.
• The M20 test fuel caused an increase in the average values of CPmax
an HRR max by 1.66% and 2.32% compared to the G100, respectively.
S. Sarıkoç
Fig. 10. The economical and environmental optimization of the test fuel.
• The average value of the ID and CD periods were substantially
affected by the addition of hydrogen in the methanol-gasoline blend,
which caused an average reduction of 6.45% and 21.1%, respec­
tively. The most important reason for this is that the hydrogen has a
considerably higher LFS and diffusion value compared to the meth­
anol and gasoline. Furthermore, the hydrogen’s higher LFS, LHV,
diffusion coefficient, and lower ignition energy led to more stable
combustion.
• The addition of hydrogen in the M20 blend, i.e., M20 + H2 caused a
considerable increase in the CPmax and HRR max by a rate of 2.02%
and 4.13%, respectively.
• The average value of EGT slightly increased by 0.92% with the
addition of methanol in the G100, also an increase was observed by a
rate of 1.38% with the addition of hydrogen in the M20 test fuel.
• The average value of CO decreased by a rate of 1.09% with the
methanol and increased by a rate of 1.84% with hydrogen.
• The average value of HC increased by a rate of 2.26% with methanol
and dramatically decreased by a rate of 13.06% with hydrogen.
• The average value of CO2 slightly increased by a rate of 0.155% with
methanol and considerably decreased by a rate of 3.90% with
hydrogen.
• The average value of NO considerably decreased by a rate of 11.82%
with methanol, but sharply increased by a rate of 31.68% with
hydrogen.
• The best economic and environmental optimum values can be sug­
gested for the M20 + H2 test fuel.
It can be concluded that the combination of hydrogen and methanol-
gasoline blend not only offset the prevention of methanol disadvantages
in engine performance but also improved the combustion and emission
characteristics. The best engine condition was obtained at 100% engine
load and λ = 1.2 for engine performance. The highest CPmax and HRR max
values occurred at 25 Nm, 50 Nm, and 100% engine loads, respectively
when λ = 0.8 for the M20 + H2 test fuel. However, the M20 test fuel
13
Fuel 297 (2021) 120732
exhibited the highest CPmax and HRR max values at 50 Nm and 100 Nm,
respectively at λ = 0.8. Thus, the highest CPmax and HRR max values were
favorably affected by the addition of methanol and hydrogen.
The exhaust emission characteristics were improved by the addition
of hydrogen and methanol compared to the gasoline. Considering all
obtained results, it is obvious that the best condition can be obtained by
the M20 and M20 + H2 test fuels at 100% engine load when λ = 1 and
1.2. Further research should be carried out to investigate the effects on
engine performance, combustion, and emission characteristics of an SI
engine operated with a higher ratio of hydrogen or methanol blend at
these conditions. Furthermore, particulate matter emissions such as
particle size distributions or concentrations can be detail investigated.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Selçuk Sarıkoç: Writing - original draft, Investigation, Visualization,
Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal anal­
ysis, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The author is grateful for the support from Amasya University and
Erciyes University. The author especially wants to thank Erciyes Uni­
versity for providing the experimental setup facilities and Erciyes Uni­
versity Proof Reading & Editing Office for their proof-reading supports.
S. Sarıkoç Fuel 297 (2021) 120732

References [29] Çelik MB, Özdalyan B, Alkan F. The use of pure methanol as fuel at high
compression ratio in a single cylinder gasoline engine. Fuel 2011;90(4):1591–8.
[30] Balki MK, Sayin C. The effect of compression ratio on the performance, emissions
[1] Gürbüz H, Şöhret Y, Akçay H. Environmental and enviroeconomic assessment of an
and combustion of an SI (spark ignition) engine fueled with pure ethanol, methanol
LPG fueled SI engine at partial load. J Environ Manage 2019;241:631–6.
and unleaded gasoline. Energy 2014;71:194–201.
[2] Zhou JH, Cheung CS, Leung CW. Combustion, performance, regulated and
[31] Li Yu, Gong J, Deng Y, Yuan W, Fu J, Zhang B. Experimental comparative study on
unregulated emissions of a diesel engine with hydrogen addition. Appl Energy
combustion, performance and emissions characteristics of methanol, ethanol and
2014;126:1–12.
butanol in a spark ignition engine. Appl Therm Eng 2017;115:53–63.
[3] Sukjit E, Herreros JM, Dearn KD, Tsolakis A, Theinnoi K. Effect of hydrogen on
[32] Agarwal AK, Karare H, Dhar A. Combustion, performance, emissions and
butanol–biodiesel blends in compression ignition engines. Int J Hydrogen Energy
particulate characterization of a methanol–gasoline blend (gasohol) fuelled
2013;38(3):1624–35.
medium duty spark ignition transportation engine. Fuel Process Technol 2014;121:
[4] Parthasarathy M, Isaac JoshuaRamesh Lalvani J, Dhinesh B, Annamalai K. Effect of
16–24.
hydrogen on ethanol-biodiesel blend on performance and emission characteristics
[33] Sarıkoç S. Impact of various lambda values on engine performance, combustion
of a direct injection diesel engine. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2016;134:433–9.
and emissions of a SI engine fueled with methanol-gasoline blends at full engine
[5] Jena J, Misra RD. Effect of fuel oxygen on the energetic and exergetic efficiency of
load. Int J Automot Eng Technol 2020;9(4):178–89.
a compression ignition engine fuelled separately with palm and karanja biodiesels.
[34] Meng F, Yu X, He L, Liu Y, Wang Ye. Study on combustion and emission
Energy 2014;68:411–9.
characteristics of a n-butanol engine with hydrogen direct injection under lean
[6] Demirbas A. Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global biofuel
burn conditions. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(15):7550–61.
projections. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49(8):2106–16.
[35] Akif Ceviz M, Sen AK, Küleri AK, Volkan Öner İ. Engine performance, exhaust
[7] Sarıkoç S. Bioenergy Potential of Turkey’s Forest Sources, Biomass Energy
emissions, and cyclic variations in a lean-burn SI engine fueled by
Conversion Methods, Products, and Applications. In: Taner T, editor. Renewable
gasoline–hydrogen blends. Appl Therm Eng 2012;36:314–24.
Energy [Working Title]. London: IntechOpen; 2020. p. 1–22.
[36] Ji C, Wang S. Experimental study on combustion and emissions performance of a
[8] Örs İ. Experimental investigation of the cetane improver and bioethanol addition
hybrid hydrogen–gasoline engine at lean burn limits. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;
for the use of waste cooking oil biodiesel as an alternative fuel in diesel engines.
35(3):1453–62.
J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 2020;42(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-020-2270-1.
[37] Ji C, Wang S. Effect of hydrogen addition on lean burn performance of a spark-
[9] Ghadikolaei MA, Cheung CS, Yung K-F. Study of combustion, performance and
ignited gasoline engine at 800rpm and low loads. Fuel 2011;90(3):1301–4.
emissions of diesel engine fueled with diesel/biodiesel/alcohol blends having the
[38] Ji C, Wang S. Combustion and emissions performance of a hybrid
same oxygen concentration. Energy 2018;157:258–69.
hydrogen–gasoline engine at idle and lean conditions. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;
[10] Emiroğlu AO, Şen M. Combustion, performance and exhaust emission
35(1):346–55.
characterizations of a diesel engine operating with a ternary blend (alcohol-
[39] Yang J, Ji C. A comparative study on performance of the rotary engine fueled
biodiesel-diesel fuel). Appl Therm Eng 2018;133:371–80.
hydrogen/gasoline and hydrogen/n-butanol. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(50):
[11] Masum BM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Palash SM, Habibullah M. Effect of
22669–75.
alcohol–gasoline blends optimization on fuel properties, performance and
[40] Gong C, et al. Comparative study on combustion and emissions between methanol
emissions of a SI engine. J Cleaner Prod 2015;86:230–7.
port-injection engine and methanol direct-injection engine with H2-enriched port-
[12] Danaiah P, Kumar PR, Kumar DV. Effect of methanol gasoline blended fuels on the
injection under lean-burn conditions. Energy Convers Manage 2019;200:112096.
performance and emissions of SI engine. Int J Ambient Energy 2013;34(4):175–80.
[41] Yilmaz İ, Taştan M. Investigation of hydrogen addition to methanol-gasoline blends
[13] İlker Örs, Bahar Sayın Kul, and Murat Ciniviz, A Comparative Study of Ethanol and
in an SI engine. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(44):20252–61.
Methanol Addition Effects on Engine Performance, Combustion and Emissions in
[42] Sarıkoç S. Effects of Hydrogen Addition on Performance, Combustion, and
the SI Engine. International Journal of Automotive Science and Technology, 2020.
Emission in a Spark Ignition Engine, in ISEAS&ISATECH&ICUAV 2020, T. Hikmet
4(2): p. 59-69.
Karakoç, et al., Editors. 2020: Online Platform ZOOM.
[14] Liu H, et al. An experimental study on particle evolution in the exhaust gas of a
[43] Pulkrabek WW. Engineering Fundamentals of the Internal Combustion Engine. Vol.
direct injection SI engine. Appl Energy 2020;260:114220.
1. 1997, Upeer Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Prenrice Hall. 426.
[15] Wang C, Zeraati-Rezaei S, Xiang L, Xu H. Ethanol blends in spark ignition engines:
[44] Uludamar E. Effect of hydroxy and hydrogen gas addition on diesel engine fuelled
RON, octane-added value, cooling effect, compression ratio, and potential engine
with microalgae biodiesel. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(38):18028–36.
efficiency gain. Appl Energy 2017;191:603–19.
[45] Duan X, Li Y, Liu J, Guo G, Fu J, Zhang Q, et al. Experimental study the effects of
[16] Polat S. An experimental investigation on combustion, performance and ringing
various compression ratios and spark timing on performance and emission of a
operation characteristics of a low compression ratio early direct injection HCCI
lean-burn heavy-duty spark ignition engine fueled with methane gas and hydrogen
engine with ethanol fuel blends. Fuel 2020;277:118092.
blends. Energy 2019;169:558–71.
[17] Li Y, Meng L, Nithyanandan K, Lee TH, Lin Y, Lee C-F, et al. Combustion,
[46] Holman JP. Experimental methods for engineers/ J.P. Holman. 8th edition. 2012,
performance and emissions characteristics of a spark-ignition engine fueled with
McGraw-Hill: Raghothaman Srinivasan.
isopropanol- n -butanol-ethanol and gasoline blends. Fuel 2016;184:864–72.
[47] Sharudin H, Abdullah NR, Najafi G, Mamat R, Masjuki HH. Investigation of the
[18] Galloni E, Fontana G, Staccone S, Scala F. Performance analyses of a spark-ignition
effects of iso-butanol additives on spark ignition engine fuelled with methanol-
engine firing with gasoline–butanol blends at partial load operation. Energy
gasoline blends. Appl Therm Eng 2017;114:593–600.
Convers Manage 2016;110:319–26.
[48] Wang C, Li Y, Xu C, Badawy T, Sahu A, Jiang C. Methanol as an octane booster for
[19] Zhang Z, Wang T, Jia M, Wei Q, Meng X, Shu G. Combustion and particle number
gasoline fuels. Fuel 2019;248:76–84.
emissions of a direct injection spark ignition engine operating on ethanol/gasoline
[49] Eyidogan M, Ozsezen AN, Canakci M, Turkcan A. Impact of alcohol–gasoline fuel
and n-butanol/gasoline blends with exhaust gas recirculation. Fuel 2014;130:
blends on the performance and combustion characteristics of an SI engine. Fuel
177–88.
2010;89(10):2713–20.
[20] Yilmaz N, Atmanli A. Experimental evaluation of a diesel engine running on the
[50] Verhelst S, Wallner T. Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines. Prog Energy
blends of diesel and pentanol as a next generation higher alcohol. Fuel 2017;210:
Combust Sci 2009;35(6):490–527.
75–82.
[51] Zhang Bo, Ji C, Wang S. Investigation on the lean combustion performance of a
[21] Örs, İ., A. Kahraman, and M. Ciniviz, Performance, emission and combustion
hydrogen-enriched n-butanol engine. Energy Convers Manage 2017;136:36–43.
analysis of a compression ignition engine using biofuel blends. Thermal Science,
[52] Balki MK, Sayin C, Canakci M. The effect of different alcohol fuels on the
2017. 21(1 Part B): p. 511-522.
performance, emission and combustion characteristics of a gasoline engine. Fuel
[22] Hotta SK, Sahoo N, Mohanty K, Kulkarni V. Ignition timing and compression ratio
2014;115:901–6.
as effective means for the improvement in the operating characteristics of a biogas
[53] Raviteja S, Kumar GN. Effect of hydrogen addition on the performance and
fueled spark ignition engine. Renewable Energy 2020;150:854–67.
emission parameters of an SI engine fueled with butanol blends at stoichiometric
[23] Chen Z, Wang L, Zhang Q, Zhang X, Yang Bo, Zeng Ke. Effects of spark timing and
conditions. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40(30):9563–9.
methanol addition on combustion characteristics and emissions of dual-fuel engine
[54] Saravanan N, Nagarajan G, Sanjay G, Dhanasekaran C, Kalaiselvan KM.
fuelled with natural gas and methanol under lean-burn condition. Energy Convers
Combustion analysis on a DI diesel engine with hydrogen in dual fuel mode. Fuel
Manage 2019;181:519–27.
2008;87(17-18):3591–9.
[24] Sarıkoç S, Ünalan S, Örs İ. Experimental Study of Hydrogen Addition on Waste
[55] Cinar C, Uyumaz A, Solmaz H, Topgul T. Effects of valve lift on the combustion and
Cooking Oil Biodiesel-Diesel-Butanol Fuel Blends in a DI Diesel Engine. Bioenergy
emissions of a HCCI gasoline engine. Energy Convers Manage 2015;94:159–68.
Res 2019;12(2):443–56.
[56] Atmanlı A, İleri E, Yüksel B. Effects of higher ratios of n-butanol addition to
[25] Kamil M, Rahman MM. Performance prediction of spark-ignition engine running
diesel–vegetable oil blends on performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel
on gasoline-hydrogen and methane-hydrogen blends. Appl Energy 2015;158:
engine. J Energy Inst 2015;88(3):209–20.
556–67.
[57] Barrios CC, Domínguez-Sáez A, Hormigo D. Influence of hydrogen addition on
[26] Sarıkoç S. Fuels of the Diesel-Gasoline Engines and Their Properties, in Diesel and
combustion characteristics and particle number and size distribution emissions of a
Gasoline Engines, R. Viskup, Editor. 2020, IntechOpen: Chapter-2, London,. p. 1-
TDI diesel engine. Fuel 2017;199:162–8.
17.
[58] Siwale L, Kristóf L, Bereczky A, Mbarawa M, Kolesnikov A. Performance,
[27] Vancoillie J, Demuynck J, Sileghem L, Van De Ginste M, Verhelst S. Comparison of
combustion and emission characteristics of n-butanol additive in
the renewable transportation fuels, hydrogen and methanol formed from
methanol–gasoline blend fired in a naturally-aspirated spark ignition engine. Fuel
hydrogen, with gasoline – Engine efficiency study. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37
Process Technol 2014;118:318–26.
(12):9914–24.
[59] Ileri E. Experimental study of 2-ethylhexyl nitrate effects on engine performance
[28] Yu X, Guo Z, He L, Dong W, Sun P, Du Y, et al. Experimental study on lean-burn
and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fueled with n-butanol or 1-pentanol
characteristics of an SI engine with hydrogen/gasoline combined injection and
diesel–sunflower oil blends. Energy Convers Manage 2016;118:320–30.
EGR. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(26):13988–98.

14
S. Sarıkoç
[60] How HG, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Teoh YH. An investigation of the engine
performance, emissions and combustion characteristics of coconut biodiesel in a
high-pressure common-rail diesel engine. Energy 2014;69:749–59.
15
Fuel 297 (2021) 120732
[61] Madhankumar S, Stanley MJ, Thiyagarajan S, Geo VE, Karthickeyan V, Chen Z.
Effect of oxygen enrichment on CI engine behavior fueled with vegetable oil: an
experimental study. J Therm Anal Calorim 2020;142(3):1275–86.
[62] Gökçe HS, Hatungimana D, Ramyar K. Effect of fly ash and silica fume on hardened
properties of foam concrete. Constr Build Mater 2019;194:1–11.