Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 79–88

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Effects of biobutanol and biobutanol–diesel blends on combustion

and emission characteristics in a passenger car diesel engine
with pilot injection strategies
Hyuntae Yun, Kibong Choi, Chang Sik Lee ⇑
School of Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea

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

Article history: In this study, we investigated the effect of biobutanol and biobutanol–diesel blends on the combustion
Received 27 August 2015 and emission characteristics in a four-cylinder compression ignition engine using pilot injection strate-
Accepted 13 December 2015 gies. The test fuels were a mixture of 10% biobutanol and 90% conventional diesel (Bu10), 20% biobutanol
and 80% diesel (Bu20), and 100% diesel fuel (Bu0) based on mass. To study the combustion and emission
characteristics of the biobutanol blended fuels, we carried out experimental investigations under various
Keywords: pilot injection timings from BTDC 20° to BTDC 60° with constant main injection timing. As the butanol
Biobutanol
content in the blended fuel increased, the experimental results indicated that the ignition delay was
Biobutanol–diesel blend
Alternative diesel fuels
longer than that of diesel fuel for all pilot injection timings. Also, the indicated specific fuel consumption
Emissions characteristics (ISFC) of the blended fuels was higher than that of diesel at all test conditions. However, the exhaust tem-
Injection timing perature was lower than that of diesel at all injection timings. Nitrogen oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide
Exhaust temperature (CO) and soot from Bu20 were lower than those from diesel fuel at all test conditions and hydrocarbons
(HC) were higher than that from diesel.
Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction carbon monoxide (CO) and un-burned hydrocarbon emissions,

To meet the growing worldwide emission regulations and
address the issues associated with fossil fuels, a lot of research
on energy development, mitigation technologies, and cleaner fuel
is being conducted. Alternative fuels, including dimethyl ether,
alcohol fuels, and biodiesels have been actively investigated from
an emissions point of view [1–4]. The uses of alcohol fuel in a com-
pression ignition engine are divided into two cases: (i) ethanol or
ethanol–gasoline injection into the intake manifold with ignition
by diesel injection as an ignited fuel, and (ii) compression ignition
of an ethanol–diesel blended fuel injected into the combustion
chamber.
In an example of the first type of engine mentioned above,
Sarjovaara and Larmi [5] investigated an ethanol–gasoline blend
(E85) used as a primary fuel with diesel as an ignition source in
a dual-fuel combustion engine. In their design, the E85 fuel was
injected into the intake manifold, and the mixture was ignited
using diesel fuel injection near the top dead center. They achieved
high E85 rates up to 89% based on energy content under medium
load conditions. Their results revealed that the E85 increased
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2220 0427; fax: +82 2 2281 5286.
E-mail address: cslee@hanyang.ac.kr (C.S. Lee).
but decreased nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission. Also, smoke emis-
sions were low in all cases, and smoke emissions at a high E85 rate
decreased to near zero.
As an example of the second type of engine mentioned above,
Hasimoglu et al. [6] reported the effects of injection timing on
the performance of a single cylinder diesel engine fueled with dif-
ferent diesel–ethanol fuels. In their study, the fuel mixtures were
prepared by addition of ethanol to diesel fuel at ratios of 5%, 10%,
and 20% by volume. A maximum power showed at 2400 rpm with
a 5% diesel–ethanol fuel mixture at an injection advance of 35° of
crank angle (CA). Also, they investigated the effects of injection
timing on the torque and brake-specific fuel consumption in a test
engine with different diesel–ethanol blends.
Many other studies have examined ethanol fuel and ethanol–
diesel blends for diesel engines with dual fuel systems [7–11].
The lower heating value (LHV) of ethanol and butanol are
26.87 MJ/kg and 33.4 MJ/kg, respectively [1,4]. The LHV of ethanol
fuel is equivalent to about 61% of conventional diesel fuel. There-
fore, large amounts of butanol fuel are required to obtain the same
power output for butanol operation; however, less butanol is
needed than ethanol because the LHV of butanol fuel is 18.46%
higher than that of ethanol fuel [12]. In addition, the latent heat
from the evaporation of ethanol is 840 kJ/kg, and that value is

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.12.017
0196-8904/Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
80 H. Yun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 79–88

Nomenclature

ATDC after top dead center (°) NOx nitrogen oxides (g/kW h)
Bu butanol P pressure (MPa)
BTDC before top dead center (°) Pinj injection pressure (MPa)
CA crank angle ROHR rate of heat release (J/deg)
CN cetane number ROPR rate of pressure rise (MPa/deg)
COV coefficient of variance tm main injection timing
CO carbon monoxide (g/kW h) tp pilot injection timing
DME dimethyl ether V volume (m3)
HC hydrocarbon (g/kW h) Xavg ensemble average
IMEP indicated mean effective pressure (MPa)
ISFC indicated specific fuel consumption (g/kW h) Greek symbols
IS indicated specific j specific heat ratio
LHV lower heating value (MJ/kg) h crank angle (°)
N total number of measurements

larger than the 585 kJ/kg of butanol fuel [6]. Many oxygenated biobutanol, methanol, etc.), are mixed with diesel fuel at a low
fuels, such as ethanol, butanol, and biodiesel can be produced from mixing ratio, they can be applied without changing the fuel supply
plant resources. The combustion of ethanol and butanol fuels system in a diesel engine.
derived from plant resources do not produce additional CO2 emis- In this study, the effects of biobutanol and biobutanol–diesel
sions because plants absorb carbon dioxide during growth. In the blends on the combustion and emission characteristics of a four-
case of various blends of butanol and diesel fuel, smoke and CO cylinder passenger car diesel engine were experimentally analyzed
emissions can be reduced because the high oxygen content of n- under constant injection pressure and various pilot injection tim-
butanol leads to improved soot oxidation in the cylinder, and it ings. The combustion effects of biobutanol and its blends on gas
decreases the smoke density from the engine [13]. Furthermore, pressures, heat release, and emissions reduction characteristics
butanol has a higher cetane number (CN) of 25 and a higher energy were compared with those of conventional diesel under various
content than ethanol fuel [14]. biobutanol blending ratios and injection timings. In order to inves-
Butanol can be produced by fermentation of biomass, such as tigate the effects of engine load on the exhaust emissions, the com-
corn, algae, and other plant materials containing cellulose. Butanol bustion characteristics, maximum combustion pressure, IS-NOx,
is a primary alcohol with a molecular formula of C4H9OH, and it is IS-Soot, IS-CO, and IS-HC emissions were analyzed according to
therefore an oxygenated fuel. Butanol has advantages over both the various load conditions and pilot injection timings for various
ethanol and methanol as an alternative fuel for combustion butanol blended diesel fuels.
engines. As mentioned above, many studies have investigated
ethanol or ethanol blended fuels, but few studies have examined 2. Experimental setup and procedure
the application of butanol to diesel engines as an alternative fuel
[16–18]. Zheng et al. [15] investigated the effects of neat 2.1. Experimental setup and test fuels
n-butanol fuel on clean combustion in a diesel engine. Their results
showed that low temperature combustion resulted in ultra-low The physical and chemical properties of test fuels and blended
NOx and near-zero emissions by using n-butanol fuel. The current ratios of biobutanol are listed in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
literatures for diesel–butanol blending effects on performance and In this investigation, test fuels were prepared using the following
emissions in a diesel engine is limited compared to gasoline engine blending ratios: a mixture of 80% biobutanol and 20% diesel fuel
applications [19–23]. Siwale et al. [19] investigated the effects of (Bu20), a mixture of 90% biobutanol and 10% diesel fuel (Bu10),
the butanol–diesel blend on thermal efficiency and brake fuel con- and 100% conventional diesel (Bu0). The experimental apparatus
sumption in a turbo-charged CI engine. In their study, fuel con- consisted of a four-cylinder diesel engine, a combustion analyzer
sumption and thermal efficiency were reported the influence of system, a dynamometer with a control system, and an exhaust
butanol blending ratios. To understand the effect of n-butanol– emissions analyzer, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The engine used in this
diesel blend on the emission of a DI diesel engine, Choi et al. [20] study is based on a four-cylinder direct injection diesel engine for a
studied that the n-butanol blend showed the increase in NOx emis- passenger car with a displacement volume of 1.582 L, a compres-
sion compared with the neat diesel fuel, and the case of 20% buta-
nol resulted in THC and CO emissions increased. Also, blending
ratio of 5% butanol reduced the PM and nanosized particulates. Table 1
Fuel properties of butanol and diesel [27,31].
In addition, the investigations of butanol addition to biodiesel–die-
sel blend have been investigated by many researchers [21–24]. Item Butanol Diesel
These works conducted the impacts of ternary blends and environ- Molecular formula C4H9OH C12–C22
mental problems. Molecular weight 74 180–220
The one major drawback of ethanol fuel is that it mixes poorly Oxygen content (%) 21.6 0
with diesel fuel. Solving this problem requires the use of a suitable Density at 20 °C (kg/m3) 810 825
Kinematic viscosity at 40 °C (mm2/s) 2.63 2.42
emulsifier or co-solvents in the blending process. On the other Cetane number
25
50
hand, butanol fuel can be mixed with petroleum diesel without Bulk modulus of elasticity (bar) 15,000 16,000
phase separation. Moreover, compared to ethanol fuel, butanol Boiling point (°C) 118
180–360
has a lower ignition temperature, lower volatility, and a higher Latent heat of evaporation (kJ/kg) 585 250
Lower heating value (MJ/kg) 33.1 43
flash point. Therefore, biobutanol would be a more suitable alter-
Stoichiometric air–fuel ratio 11.2 15
native fuel than ethanol. Also, if alcohol-based biofuels (bioethanol,
 H. Yun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 79–88 81

Table 2 Table 3
Experimental conditions and test fuels. Specification of experimental engine.

Item Test conditions and fuels Item Specification

Engine speed (rpm) 1500 Type 4-stroke VGT DI diesel
Engine load (N m) 30, 60 (DOHC 4 valve per cylinder)
Injection pressure (MPa) 70 Bore  Stroke (mm) 77.2  84.5
Pilot injection timing (°BTDC) 20,30,40,50,60 Displacement volume (cc) 1582
Main injection timing (°BTDC) 3 Compression ratio 17.3
Blend Bu0 (mass, %) Diesel 100, butanol 0 Fuel injection system Bosch Common rail
Blend Bu10 (mass, %) Diesel 90, butanol 10 Intake valve (°) Open BTDC 6
Butanol Bu20 (mass, %) Diesel 80, butanol 20 Close ABDC 34
Pilot injection quantity (mg/cycle) Bu0:1.65, Bu10:1.75, Bu20:1.76 Exhaust valve (°) Open BBDC 46
Close ATDC 4
Max. power (kW/rpm) 86/4000
Data Max. torque (N m/rpm) 260/2000
acquisition system Charge amplifier Crank angle Max. speed (rpm) 4750
sensor
Exhaust gas
Pressure analyzer
High sensor (NOx, CO, HC)
pressure pump In this equation, dQ =dh is the heat release rate and dV=dh,
dP=dh, and j are the rate of volume change, the rate of pressure
change, and the specific heat ratio, respectively.
Common-rail Exhaust In order to confirm the combustion stability, the coefficient of
gas
variation COVx was calculated as
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PN 2
1 i¼1 ðxi  X avg Þ
Smoke meter
Fuel tank Intake air Test engine COVx ¼ ð2Þ
X avg N
ECU
where X avg is the ensemble average of xi over multiple engine cycles,
Fuel supply line xi is any parameter associated with the combustion data, and N is
ECU Fuel return line Dynamometer Dynamometer the total number of measurements. The combustion pressure and
controller
controller Signal line crank angle data were measured for 300 cycles, and these data were
obtained using a data acquisition board with a sampling interval of
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental setup for four cylinder diesel engine.
a 0.1° crank angle (CA). In order to control the injection parameters
(the injection timings and injection quantity), an injector driver
sion ratio of 17.3, and maximum power of 86 kW at 4000 rpm. (TDA-3300, TEMS) was synchronized with various signals, such as
Table 3 shows the specifications of test engine. The combustion injection mass and crank angle. To investigate the combustion
analyzer was composed of a pressure transducer (6057ASP, effects of biobutanol–diesel blends, experiments performed under
Kistler), a charge amplifier (5011B, Kistler), and a crank angle a constant engine speed of 1500 rpm and a 30 N m of engine load,
detecting sensor. The engine speed and load were controlled by which is about 25% of the maximum torque. Table 2 showed exper-
an eddy current dynamometer (150 kW, AG 150, Froude) with a imental conditions and test fuels associated with this investigation.
torque accuracy of 1.25 N m and its associated control system
(INCA V5.4, ETAS). To analyze the combustion characteristics, com- 3. Results and discussion
bustion pressures and crank angles were measured using a data
acquisition system (NI, PCI 6251 & SC 2345) and a program soft- 3.1. Combustion characteristics of biobutanol blends according to pilot
ware. The exhaust emissions from the test engine were analyzed injection timings
using a NOx, HC, and CO emission analyzer (Horiba, MEXA-
554JK) and a smoke analyzer (AVL, AVL415S). In this investigation, Fig. 2 shows the kinematic viscosity and cetane number (CN) of
the specifications and measurement accuracy of the test instru- biobutanol blended fuel as a function of biobutanol content in the
ments are listed in Table 4.
Table 4
2.2. Experimental method Specifications of instruments.

Item Specification and measuring range

In order to investigate the combustion effects of the biobu-
Dynamometer Froude AG150, eddy current type
tanol–diesel blends, experiments were performed under a constant Accuracy: torque ±1.25 N m, speed ±1 rpm
engine speed of 1500 rpm, 30 N m and 60 N m of engine load, and
Pressure sensor Kistler 6058A, 0–250 bar
the experimental conditions listed in Table 2. In this investigation, Sensitivity : 17 pC/bar
the coolant and lubricating oil temperatures were controlled at
Data acquisition devices NI PCI 6251 & SC2345
80 ± 1 °C. Additionally, the pilot and main injection pressure of Sampling rate: 1.25 MS/s
the fuels were maintained at a constant pressure of 70 MPa. The Measuring range: 10 V to 10 V
pilot injection quantity was fixed at 20% of a single injection. Pilot Exhaust emission analyzer Horiba, MEXA-554JK, range (repeatability)
injection timing was varied from 20° before top dead center (BTDC) CO: 0.00–10.0 vol.% (±0.06 vol.%)
to 60° BTDC at increments of 3° BTDC while maintaining constant HC: 0–10.0 ppm vol. (±12 ppm vol.)
main injection timing. To analyze the thermodynamic analysis of CO2: 0.00–20.0 vol.% (±0.5 vol.%)
NOx: 0.11–5000 ppm vol (±20 ppm vol.)
the measured pressure and crank angle, the rate of heat release
of butanol–diesel blends in the engine can be calculated as Smoke analyzer AVL smoke meter 415SE
Range: 0–10 FSN or 0–32,000 mg/m3
dQ j dV 1 dP Resolution: 0.001 FSN or 0.001 mg/m3
¼ P þ V ð1Þ Repeatability: 1r 6 ±(0.005 FSN + 3% @ 10 s)
dh j  1 dh j  1 dh
82 H. Yun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 79–88

48 diesel fuel. This figure is derived from the equations suggested by

2.6 Kinematic viscosity Zöldy et al. [25]. An increase in butanol fraction in the blend
Cetane number (CN) 4 6
brought about a decrease in kinematic viscosity. In addition, the
2.4 cetane number of the blends was reduced with an increase in buta-
Blend viscocity (mm /s)

44
nol fraction in the mixture. These results indicated that that the
2

increase in butanol fraction resulted in an increase in oxygen con-

Blend CN
2.2 42
tent in the blended fuel due to the oxygenated biobutanol fuel
2.0 40 compared to pure diesel. As shown in Table 1, butanol fuel contains
21.6% of oxygen content and latent heat is 2.34 times larger than
38 that of diesel fuel. Increase in blending ratio of butanol brought
1.8
about the increase in oxygenated content than pure diesel, and
36
latent heat of the mixture was increased because of higher evapo-
1.6
rating heat of butanol.
34
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 In the case of the blended fuels, the heat release and ROPR were
Biobutanol blended ratio delayed for all three pilot injection timings compared with conven-
tional diesel fuel. The effect of the butanol ratio on the cetane
Fig. 2. Viscosity and cetane number of butanol blended fuels. number is given by the Eq. (3) [25].

Fig. 3. Effect of butanol blended ratio on combustion pressure and rate of heat release.
 H. Yun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 79–88 83

14

t pilot : 20°BTDC
t pilot : 40°BTDC
12
t pilot : 60°BTDC
θ (ROHR max) (°ATDC)

10

Bu 0 Bu 10 Bu 20
Butanol blended fuels
(a) Crank angle at peak HRR

14

t pilot : 20°BTDC
13 t pilot : 40°BTDC
t pilot : 60°BTDC
12
θ (Pmax) (°ATDC)

11

10

7
Bu 0 Bu 10 Bu 20
Butanol blended fuels
(b) Crank angle at peak combustion pressure
Fig. 4. Crank angle at peak HRR and peak pressure.

CNblend ¼ 0:4908X b þ CNd ð3Þ

This equation was obtained in a previous investigation wherein
CNblend was the cetane number of the blend and X b and CNd were
the volumetric content in the blend and the cetane number of
the reference fuel, respectively. As shown in the equation, the
cetane number decreases as butanol is mixed into the diesel fuel.
A one percentage butanol addition to diesel fuel decreases the
CN of the blends by 0.5. Thus, the CN of the butanol blends was
decreased, which increased the ignition delay.
Fig. 3 shows the results of the combustion pressure and the rate
of heat release (ROHR) of the test fuels as a function of the pilot
injection timings. In the case of a 20° BTDC pilot injection timing
and a 3° BTDC main injection timing shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b),
the maximum combustion pressure of Bu20 is slightly higher than
those of Bu10 and Bu0. On the whole, as the amount of biobutanol
increased in the blended fuel, combustion pressure and ROHR
Fig. 5. Effect of butanol blended ratio on pressure increase.
increased slightly. As illustrated in the heat release history based
on the Eq. (1), the maximum rate of heat release slightly increased
as the blending ratio increased from Bu0 to Bu20. This trend of fuel. When the pilot injection timing at 30 N m of load was tp = 20°
combustion pressure and ROHR show that Bu20 fuel has higher BTDC, the CA of the peak pressures with conventional diesel fuel
combustion characteristics than Bu0 and Bu10 fuels, and the max- were at 9.5 °CA and that of Bu10 and Bu20 was at 9.6 °CA. On
imum point of crank angle was retarded to that of diesel fuel. Fur- the other hand, the peak point CA of ROHR for Bu0 was at
thermore, the maximum ROHR point was lower than that of diesel 5.8 °CA at the BTDC 20° of pilot injection timing, whereas it
84 H. Yun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 79–88
Fig. 6. Effect of butanol blended ratio on ignition delay, COV imep and exhaust gas
temperature.
occurred at 6 °CA and 6.3 °CA for Bu10 and Bu20, respectively. The
delayed peak point of ROHR can be explained by the lower cetane
number (CN) and higher latent heat of evaporation of butanol com-
pared with the Bu0 fuel [17]. When the engine load is increased to
60 N m, combustion pressure and ROHR were significantly
Fig. 7. Effect of butanol blended ratio on indicated specific fuel consumptions.
Fig. 8. Effect of butanol blended ratio on the fuel conversion efficiency.
increased compared to 30 N m of load as illustrated in Fig. 3(b).
In the case of heat release, effects of pilot injection markedly
increased than 30 N m. The low cetane number and calorific values
of the butanol blended diesel fuels caused delayed peaks in the
 H. Yun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 79–88
combustion pressure and ROHR. In Fig. 3(a), the peak point CA of
the combustion pressure and ROHR of Bu10 and Bu20 was
retarded, and these values increased. Fushimi et al. [18] reported
similar effects of butanol on diesel combustion in a butanol and
gas oil blend.
The combustion characteristics of conventional diesel and buta-
nol blended fuels, including combustion pressure and ROHR at a
40° BTDC pilot injection timing are shown in Fig. 3(c) and (d). In
this figure, small figures in Fig. 3(c)–(f) mean the gas pressure
and heat release at pilot injection. Comparing the combustion pres-
sure and ROHR, the 40° BTDC pilot injection timing showed higher
characteristics and retarded peak angles for heat release and cylin-
der pressure. In Fig. 3(c), the difference of ROHR between 40° BTDC
and 20° BTDC pilot injection timings was about 2.4 °CA for diesel,
and 2.9°CA and 3.5 °CA for Bu10 and Bu20, respectively.
Fig. 3(e) and (f) shows the traces of combustion pressure and
ROHR for 60° BTDC pilot injection at 30 N m and 60 N m of engine
load. Combustion pressure and heat release were also increased
with the increase in engine load. A comparison between Fig. 3
(a) and (e) reveal that the peak point of ROHR at 60° BTDC pilot
injection timing was more delayed than at 20° BTDC. In this case,
the gaps in the maximum CA point for ROHR at 60° BTDC and
20° BTDC were 3.2°CA for Bu0, 3.5°CA for Bu10, and 4.1°CA for
Bu20.
Fig. 4(a) and (b) shows the crank angle (h) of (ROHR)max and
maximum pressure (Pmax) for the conventional diesel and butanol
blended fuels. As can be seen in these figures, the peak point loca-
tion of h (ROHR)max and the crank angle at the maximum gas pres-
sure was influenced by the pilot injection timing more than by the
fuel type. In the case of pilot injection timings at 40° BTDC and 60°
BTDC, crank angles at (ROHR)max showed significant retardation as
Fig. 9. Effect of butanol blended ratio on NOx and soot emissions.
85
compared to that at 20° BTDC. On the other hand, the crank angle
at peak pressure showed similar values for three different blends,
and the influence of pilot injection timing on the crank angle at
peak pressure showed a delayed peak point. However, the differ-
ences due to the crank angle at peak pressure were not large com-
pared to h (ROHR)max.
Fig. 5 shows the rate of pressure rise (ROPR; dP/dh) as a function
of the blending ratio of biobutanol fuel in the engine. As illustrated
in Fig. 5(a)–(c), the influence of the blended fuel was small com-
pared to that of the pilot injection timing. Comparing these three
figures, the rate of pressure rise showed the highest value of ROPR
at a 40° BTDC of pilot injection timing. The reason why the effect of
pilot injection significantly appeared at the beyond 40° BTDC. As
shown in Fig. 7(a), the slope of ISFC increased drastically from
20° BTDC to 40° BTDC but it is nearly similar from 40° BTDC to
60° BTDC. However, the butanol blended effects were small for
all three pilot injection timings. Thus, the ROPR pattern in Fig. 5
resulted in a lower peak value than that of 40° BTDC and 60° BTDC.
This means that the ROPR in the 20° BTDC timing showed similar
trends of lower ROHR and peak point crank angle as indicated in
Figs. 3 and 4.
Fig. 6 demonstrates the ignition delay, the variation of the coef-
ficient of the indicated mean effective pressure (COVimep), and the
exhaust gas temperatures of Bu0, Bu10, and Bu20 as a function of
pilot injection timing. Fig. 6(a) shows the ignition delay for the
three fuels as a function of pilot injection timing. The ignition delay
with butanol-fueled combustion increases in the order of Bu20,
Bu10, and Bu0. In the combustion process in the engine, the igni-
tion timing is defined as the zero-crossing point of the tangential
line to the ROHR curve in the initial premixed burning stage. On
the other hand, the ignition delay is described as the duration in
86 H. Yun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 79–88
crank angle between the start of fuel injection and the ignition
point of the supplied fuel. In Fig. 6(a), Bu0 and Bu10 showed a
smaller ignition delay than the Bu20 fuel. The ignition delay
increased as the alcohol blend ratio increased because the cetane
number decreased with increasing alcohol content [26]. In Fig. 6
(b), the COVimep showed less than 2.5% variation, and the values
were similar for all test injection timings. This mean effective pres-
sure remained approximately stable and did not show large fluctu-
ations in operating cycles. On the other hand, Fig. 6(c) shows the
exhaust gas temperatures of the butanol blends, which were lower
than those of conventional diesel fuel (Bu0) under all injection tim-
ings. As the mixing ratio increased, the exhaust gas temperatures
significantly decreased compared to Bu0. This reduction of exhaust
gas temperature with increased butanol could be caused by the
lower energy content of the blended fuel. The other reason for
the low temperature of the butanol blends is the higher latent heat
of evaporation of butanol fuel, which contributed to the evapora-
tive cooling of the combustion gas [21].
Fig. 7 presents the effect of engine load on the indicated specific
fuel consumption (ISFC) for various pilot injection timings at an
engine speed of 1500 rpm and a main injection timing of 3° ATDC.
In the range of 20–40° BTDC in Fig. 7(a) and (b), the ISFC increased
slightly in accordance with increasing the butanol content in the
blended fuel at the same load condition due to the lower heating
value of butanol. But the ISFC showed almost similar values for
the range of 40–60° BTDC. Comparing the heating value, LHV of
butanol fuel is 23% lower than the LHV of diesel fuel as shown in
Table 1. Therefore, the LHV of the butanol blended diesel fuel
required a larger injected quantity to obtain the same power as
conventional diesel.
Fig. 10. Effect of butanol ratio on CO and HC emissions.
Fig. 8 shows the thermal efficiency of the test fuels for various
pilot injection timings. As illustrated in this figure, the efficiency
decreased for advanced injection timings of the pilot injection,
but that effect was quite small in the range from 40° to 60° BTDC
compared to the cases of 20° and 30° BTDC.
3.2. Emission characteristics of the biobutanol blends and diesel fuel
according to pilot injection timing
Fig. 9 shows NOx and soot emission characteristics as a function
of pilot injection timing at an engine speed of 1500 rpm and
30 N m and 60 N m of engine load. As shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b),
the NOx emissions from butanol blended diesel fuels are lower
than those of conventional diesel fuel at all test conditions. It can
be attributed to the lower gas temperature of butanol blended die-
sel fuels because the formation of NOx depends on the gas temper-
ature in the combustion chamber and the residence time of
oxygen. As mentioned above, the LHV of butanol is lower than that
of conventional diesel fuel, and the latent heat of evaporation of
butanol is higher value than diesel. Therefore, these factors influ-
enced on the decrease in NOx. In a butanol fueled diesel engine,
NOx emissions was slightly lower than the diesel fuel except for
high load conditions [28,29]. Fig. 9(c) and (d) shows the exhaust
soot emissions for the conventional diesel (Bu0) and biobutanol
blended fuels (Bu10 and Bu20). Soot emissions from the biobutanol
blended diesel were less than those from conventional diesel at
various pilot injection timings. This result was attributed to the
presence of oxygen in the biobutanol and the low carbon content
of butanol blends compared to the pure diesel. In the combustion
reaction, the oxygen in the fuel molecule promoted the fuel
 H. Yun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 79–88
combustion in the engine cylinder and decreased soot emissions.
Soot emissions also declined with an enlarged interval between
the main injection and the pilot injection, as shown in Fig. 9
(c) and (d). In the case of 60 N m load, IS-Soot emissions are signif-
icantly increased compared to 30 N m of engine load.
Fig. 10 shows CO and HC emissions for various pilot injection
timings and engine loads. CO emissions of the biobutanol blends
in Fig. 10(a) were lower than those of conventional diesel. How-
ever, the amount of CO emissions at 60 N m of engine load in
Fig. 10(b) are similarly emitted. As mentioned above, the higher
oxygen content of biobutanol–diesel blends enhanced the combus-
tion reaction between the fuel and oxygen. However, HC emissions
of biobutanol blended fuels in Fig. 10(c) and (d) were higher than
those of conventional diesel at all pilot injection timings. The for-
mation of unburned hydrocarbons was due to various factors, such
as the combustion chamber geometry, heat of vaporization, and
wall wetting of the cylinder and piston surface. Among the various
factors, the latent heat of vaporization of butanol significantly
influenced on the formation of HC emissions because a latent heat
of butanol is about 2.34 times higher than that of conventional die-
sel fuel. Rakopoulos et al. [30] reported a similar trend of HC emis-
sions in their study of butanol–diesel fuel blends in a high-speed DI
diesel engine. The low cetane number and higher latent heat of
butanol led to a longer ignition delay when blended with diesel
fuel. Also, the pilot injection strategy for biobutanol blends brought
about higher HC emissions because of the lower in-cylinder gas
pressure and combustion temperature. In addition, the trend of
IS-HC emission showed lower concentration compared to 30 N m
of engine load.
4. Conclusions
In this study, we experimentally investigated the effect of con-
ventional diesel fuel and various butanol blended diesel fuels on
the combustion and emission characteristics of a direct injection
diesel engine with pilot injection strategies. The conclusions
obtained from this work are as follows:
1. The maximum combustion pressure and heat release rate of
biobutanol–diesel blends were slightly higher than those of
conventional diesel at the various pilot injection timings. As
the mixing ratio of biobutanol in the biobutanol–diesel blends
increased, the ignition delay of a biobutanol blended diesel
increased and the peak points in the crank angle of combustion
pressure and rate of heat release were retarded.
2. The exhaust gas temperatures of biobutanol blended diesel
fuels were lower than those of conventional diesel fuel under
all pilot injection timings, and the increase in biobutanol blend-
ing ratio resulted in a decrease in exhaust gas temperature.
3. The indicated specific fuel consumption rate increased slightly
with an increase in biobutanol fraction in the blended fuel
because the low LHV of biobutanol required a much higher fuel
consumption to maintain the same power output performance.
4. Biobutanol blended diesel fuel showed lower NOx emissions
than the neat diesel fuel, and soot emissions were significantly
reduced with increasing butanol content in the blended fuel.
As the biobutanol blending ratio increased, CO emissions from
the combustion of biobutanol blends decreased slightly and
HC emissions were higher than those of diesel fuel.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science, ICT and
Future Planning of Korea (MSIP No. 2012007015).
87
References
[1] Semelsberger TA, Borup RL, Greene H. Dimethyl ether (DME) as an alternative
fuel. J Power Sources 2006;156:497–511.
[2] Park SH, Lee CS. Applicability of dimethyl ether (DME) in a compression
ignition engine as an alternative fuel. Energy Convers Manage
2014;86:848–63.
[3] Agarwal AK. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) application as fuels for internal
combustion engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2007;33:233–71.
[4] Park SH, Youn IM, Lee CS. Influence of ethanol blends on the combustion
performance and exhaust emission characteristics of a four-cylinder
diesel engine at various engine loads and injection timings. Fuel
2011;90:748–55.
[5] Sarjovaara T, Larmi M. Dual fuel diesel combustion with an E85
ethanol/gasoline blend. Fuel 2015;139:704–14.
[6] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Papagiannakis RG, Kyritsis DC. Combustion
heat release analysis of ethanol or n-butanol diesel fuel blends in heavy-duty
DI diesel engine. Fuel 2011;90:1855–67.
[7] He BQ, Shuai SJ, Wang JX, He H. The effect of ethanol blended diesel fuels on
emissions from a diesel engine. Atmos Environ 2003;37:4965–71.
[8] Shahir SA, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Imran A, Ashraful AM. Performance and
emission assessment of diesel–biodiesel–ethanol/bioethanol blend as a fuel in
diesel engines: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;48:62–78.
[9] Tse H, Leung CW, Cheung CS. Investigation on the combustion characteristics
and particulate emissions from a diesel engine fueled with diesel–biodiesel–
ethanol blends. Energy 2015;83:343–50.
[10] Shahir SA, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Imran A, Rizwanul Fattah IM, Sanjid A.
Feasibility of diesel–biodiesel–ethanol/bioethanol blend as existing CI engine
fuel: an assessment of properties, material compatibility, safety and
combustion: review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;32:379–95.
[11] Murcak A, Hasßimoğlu C, Çevik I, Karabektasß M, Ergen G. Effect of ethanol–
diesel blends to performance of a DI diesel engine for different injection
timings. Fuel 2013;109:582–7.
[12] Sahin Z, Durgun O, Aksu ON. Experimental investigation of n-butanol/diesel
fuel blends and n-butanol fumigation – evaluation of engine performance,
exhaust emissions, heat release and flammability analysis. Energy Convers
Manage 2015;103:778–89.
[13] Yao M, Wang H, Zheng Z, Yue Y. Experimental study of n-butanol additive and
multi-injection on HD diesel engine performance and emissions. Fuel
2010;89:2191–201.
[14] Giakoumis EG, Rakopoulos CD, Dimaratos AM, Rakopoulos DC. Exhaust
emissions with ethanol or n-butanol diesel fuel blends during transient
operation: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;17:170–90.
[15] Zheng M, Li T, Han X. Direct injection of neat n-butanol for enabling clean low
temperature combustion in a modern diesel engine. Fuel 2015;142:28–37.
[16] Chen Z, Liu J, Han Z, Du B, Liu Y, Lee C. Study on performance and emissions of
a passenger-car diesel engine fueled with butanol–diesel blends. Energy
2013;55:638–46.
[17] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG, Papagiannakis RG, Kyritsis DC.
Influence of properties of various common bio-fuels on combustion and
emission characteristics of high-speed DI (direct injection) diesel engine:
vegetable oil, biodiesel, ethanol, n-butanol, diethyl ether. Energy
2014;73:354–66.
[18] Fushimi K, Kinoshita E, Yoshimoto Y. Effect of butanol isomer on diesel
combustion characteristics of butanol/gas oil blend. SAE paper 2013; SAE
2013-32-9097.
[19] Siwale L, Kristóf L, Adam T, Bereczky A, Mbarawa M, Penninger A, et al.
Combustion and emission characteristics of n-butanol/diesel fuel blend in a
turbo-charged compression ignition engine. Fuel 2013;107:409–18.
[20] Choi B, Jiang X, Kim YK, Jung G, Lee C, Choi I, et al. Effect of diesel fuel blend
with n-butanol on the emission of a turbocharged common rail direct injection
diesel engine. Appl Energy 2015;146:20–8.
[21] Zhang ZH, Balasubramanian R. Influence of butanol addition to diesel–
biodiesel blend on engine performance and particulate emissions of a
stationary diesel engine. Appl Energy 2014;119:530–6.
[22] Ileri E, Atmanli A, Yilmaz N. Comparative analyses of n-butanol–rapeseed oil–
diesel blend with biodiesel, diesel and biodiesel–diesel fuels in a turbocharged
direct injection diesel engine. J Energy Inst 2015:1–8.
[23] Iannuzzi SE, Valentino G. Comparative behavior of gasoline–diesel/butanol–
diesel blends and injection strategy management on performance and
emissions of a light duty diesel engine. Energy 2014;71:321–31.
[24] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG, Papagiannakis RG, Kyritsis DC.
Influence of properties of various common bio-fuels on the combustion and
emission characteristics of high-speed DI (direct injection) diesel engine:
vegetable oil, bio-diesel, ethanol, n-butanol, diethyl ether. Energy
2014;73:354–66.
[25] Zoldy M, Hollo A, Thernesz A. Butanol as a diesel extender option for internal
combustion engine. SAE paper 2010; SAE 2010-01-0481.
[26] Yamamoto S, Agui Y, Kawaharada N, Ueki H, Sakaguchi D, Ishida M.
Comparison of diesel combustion between ethanol and butanol blended
with gas oil. SAE paper 2012; SAE 2012-32-0020.
[27] Atmanli Alpaslan, Ileri Erol, Yuksel Bedri. Experimental investigation of engine
performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fueled with diesel–n-
butanol–vegetable oil blends. Energy Convers Manage 2014;81:312–21.
88 H. Yun et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 111 (2016) 79–88

[28] Choi Byungchul, Jiang Xiaolong. Individual hydrocarbons and particulate
emissions from a turbocharged CRDI diesel engine fueled with n-butanol
diesel blends. Fuel 2015;154:188–95.
[29] 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 paper 2014; SAE
2014-01-1298.
[30] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG, Dimaratos AM, Kyritsis
DC. Effects of butanol–diesel fuel blends on the performance and
emissions of a high-speed DI diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage
2010;51:1989–97.
[31] Liu H, Huo M, Liu Y, Wang X, Wang H, Yao M, Lee C-f. Time resolved spray,
flame, soot quantitative measurement fueling n-butanol and soybean
biodiesel in a constant volume chamber under various ambient temperature.
Fuel 2014;133:317–25.