Fuel 106 (2013) 310–317

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Experimental determination of laminar burning velocity for butanol/iso-octane

and ethanol/iso-octane blends for different initial pressures
G. Broustail a,b, F. Halter a, P. Seers b, G. Moréac c, C. Mounaïm-Rousselle a,⇑
a
Laboratoire PRISME, Université d’Orléans, 45072 Orléans, France
b
Dép. Génie Mécanique, École de technologie supérieure, Montréal, Canada H3C 1K3
c
Renault, Technocentre, 91510 Lardy, France

h i g h l i g h t s

" We determine experimentally the laminar flame speed for butanol/isooctane blends at different equivalence ratio.
" The effect of initial pressure was studied.
" We compare all data with the case of ethanol/isooctane blend.
" Markstein length was also estimated to evaluate the stability of flame.

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

Article history: The comparison of butanol/isooctane blends with an ethanol/isooctane blend was characterized with
Received 7 March 2012 respect to laminar combustion, by using the spherical expanding flame methodology, in a constant vol-
Received in revised form 26 October 2012 ume vessel. This paper presents the results obtained for blends with alcohol concentrations of 0%, 25%,
Accepted 29 October 2012
50%, 75% and 100% (in volume) and an equivalence ratio ranging from 0.7 to 1.4, at different initial pres-
Available online 28 November 2012
sures (0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and 1.0 MPa) and an initial temperature of 423 K. The addition of alcohol to isooctane
increases the laminar burning velocity, but increasing the initial pressure limits this increase. From
Keywords:
burned gas Markstein length estimates, the flame of ethanol/isooctane and air mixture seems to be less
Laminar burning velocity
Alcohol blends
sensitive to the total stretch rate and thermo-diffusive instabilities. From experimental data, a correlation
Pressure effect with laminar burning velocity is suggested as a function of initial pressure, equivalence ratio and alcohol
concentration.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction butanol-fueled engines or even butanol combustion, or on assess-

In response to the environmental problems related to fuel con-
sumption and the associated emissions of CO2 and other pollu-
tants, new fuels can present promising alternatives for Internal
Combustion Engines but still need some optimization steps. In
the case of Spark-Ignition (S.I.) engines, the addition of alcohol to
gasoline can provide a partial but rapid answer to the aforemen-
tioned problem, without any drastic engine changes. Most of the
studies evaluating alcohol as fuel were carried out with ethanol
[1–4], while very few studies exist on butanol [5–7]. Recently, BP
and DuPont [8] announced that they would produce n-butanol
(called ‘biobutanol’), as a gasoline-blending component. Butanol
allows shorter ignition delays and a shorter combustion duration
than ethanol. Very few studies have been performed on
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 238494362; fax: +33 238417383.
E-mail address: christine.rousselle@univ-orleans.fr (C. Mounaïm-Rousselle).
ing n-butanol as a blending agent with gasoline [7,9–12] to im-
prove it. Butanol is promising, as its properties are closer to
gasoline than those of ethanol, as can be seen in Table 1. Iso-octane
properties are also indicated as iso-octane is considered as repre-
sentative of gasoline. One advantage of butanol over ethanol is that
it is much less hydrophilic, which greatly reduces the risk of water
contamination/absorption by the fuel. Alasfour [9,10] noted a 7%
decrease in power when a single S.I. engine was fueled with pure
gasoline or with a 30% butanol–gasoline blend and for different
equivalence ratios.
In recent work [11], Dernotte et al. observed that adding buta-
nol, even in small concentrations, can stabilize combustion, partic-
ularly in the case of lean mixtures, and can also reduce ignition
delay but without affecting the duration of the main combustion
phase. The latter result suggests that laminar speed in the case of
butanol is close to that of gasoline. Fundamental combustion
experiments in controlled conditions are therefore required to bet-
ter predict the combustion performance of n-butanol as fuel.

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.10.066
 G. Broustail et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 310–317 311

Table 1 80
Fuel properties.

Iso-octane Butanol Ethanol

Chemical formula C8H18 C4H10O C2H6O

Laminar Burning velocity (cm/s)

Low heating value (MJ/kg) 44.3 32 26.8
60
Latent heat of vaporization (kJ/L) 213.1 474 725.4
Density (kg/m3) 692 813 794
Oxygen (wt%) 0 21.6 34.7
RON 100 113 111

40

Laminar burning velocity is an important fundamental prop-

erty to predict the turbulent combustion process in the case of B100, 423 K
S.I. engines but also to improve the kinetic scheme of fuel oxida- 0.1 MPa
20
tion. While many authors have determined the laminar burning 0.3 MPa
velocity of ethanol/air mixtures numerically and experimentally 0.5 MPa
[13–23], only a few studies have focused on butanol/air mixtures 1.0 MPa
[19,24–27]. An initial study was carried out by Broustail et al. [28]
on ethanol/iso-octane and butanol/iso-octane blends, but only at 0
an initial pressure of 0.1 MPa. The results highlighted that the 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
addition of alcohol to iso-octane increases the laminar flame Equivalence Ratio
velocity for all equivalence ratios. Overall, there is a lack of data
on the laminar flame characteristics for alcohol blends iso- Fig. 3. Laminar burning velocity evolution versus equivalence ratio for pure butanol
octane/air mixtures as a function of the initial pressure. at different initial pressures.

Fig. 1. Scheme of the laminar flame propagation set-up.

2 ms 4 ms 6 ms
Fig. 2. Example of flame propagation for E75 stoichiometric mixture at 0.1 MPa initial pressure. Temporal reference = ignition timing.
312 G. Broustail et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 310–317

The objective of this paper is therefore to provide new data on
laminar burning velocity by using a spherically expanding flame
methodology for different butanol/iso-octane mixtures and etha-
nol/iso-octane mixtures for comparison, for alcohol concentrations
of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% (in volume), for an equivalence ratio
ranging from 0.8 to 1.4, an initial pressure of 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and
1.0 MPa, and a temperature of 423 K.
2. Experimental set-up
The experimental set-up is composed of a spherical stainless
steel combustion chamber with an inner volume of 4.22L. Two
tungsten electrodes, linked to a conventional capacitive discharge
ignition system, were used to form the spark gap at the center of
this chamber. More details can be found in [29,30]. Before filling
the chamber with gases, a vacuum was created in the chamber.
The air and liquid fuels were introduced into the chamber by
means of thermal mass flow-meters and were heated to 453 K to
ensure that all types of fuel were fully vaporized. A fan was located
inside the chamber to obtain a perfectly homogenous air–fuel mix-
ture. After introducing the different volumes of gases, the chamber
was at an initial temperature of 423 K. For this study, five volumet-
ric fractions of alcohols in iso-octane were considered: 0%, 25%,
50%, 75% and 100%, for both ethanol and butanol. The cases will
be referred to as BX and EX, with X the percentage of alcohol in
the blend. Pure iso-octane is called B0/E0. The equivalence ratio
was varied from 0.8 to 1.4. The experiments were repeated three
times to ensure accuracy. A mean variation from the three tests
was found to be lower than ±1.0 cm/s for the laminar burning
velocity value. For the sake of clarity, in all the following figures,
the error bars are not shown.
3. Laminar burning velocity estimation
To estimate the laminar burning velocity, flame propagation
was recorded with the shadowgraph technique. A parallel light
beam from a continuous Argon Ion laser was generated by using
two plano-convex lenses. The flame images were recorded with a

(a) 0.1 MPa (b) 0.3 MPa

70 60
Laminar Burning Velocity (cm/s)
Laminar Burning Velocity (cm/s)

60 50

50 40

0.1 MPa (a), 423 K

40 30 0.3 MPa (b), 423 K
B0/E0
B0/E0
B100
B100
E100
E100

30 20
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Equivalence ratio Equivalence Ratio

(c) 0.5 MPa (d) 1.0 MPa

45 40
Laminar Burning Velocity (cm/s)
Laminar Burning Velocity (cm/s)

40

30
35

30

0.5 MPa (c), 423 K 20

B0/E0 1.0 MPa (d), 423 K
B100 B0/E0
25
E100 B100
E100

20 10
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
Equivalence Ratio Equivalence Ratio

Fig. 4. Comparison of laminar burning velocity evolution versus equivalence ratio for pure iso-octane, butanol and ethanol at initial pressures of 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and 1.0 MPa.
 G. Broustail et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 310–317 313

high speed 512  512 pixel2 CMOS Photron camera operating at recapitulated here. In the case of free spherically propagating
6000 frames/s, at a fixed exposure time of 20 ls. A global sche- flames, the stretched flame speed, Sb and the total stretch rate K
matic view of the system is presented in Fig. 1. are deduced from the temporal derivative of the flame radius, ru.
In Fig. 2, an example of flame propagation for a stoichiometric The nonlinear expression recently used by Kelley and Law [32]
mixture of 75% ethanol and 25% iso-octane, i.e. E75 at 0.1 MPa ini- was used for this study to extract the unstretched flame speed, S0b :
tial pressure is presented. As a spherical flame front propagation is !2 0 !2 1
assumed, the luminous zone can be fitted by a circle. The effect of Sb Sb A ¼  2  Lb  K
 ln @ 0 ð1Þ
initial spark energy deposit is considered negligible on the flame S0b Sb S0b
expansion for a flame radius larger than 6 mm [29]. Thus, only data
corresponding to a flame radius larger than 6.5 mm and up to a va- with Lb the burned gas Markstein length (m) and K the total stretch
lue lower than 25 mm were considered, i.e. a total volume of rate (s1).
burned gases less than 0.5% of the total volume, so that the total From data processing software (under a Matlab environment),
chamber pressure can be considered constant. Moreover, this lim- the laminar burning velocity can therefore be determined from
itation to 25 mm means that the laminar burning velocity can be the unstretched propagation flame velocity and the density ratio
determined even if the flame becomes cellular (encountered only by using the following expression:
at higher equivalence ratios). Indeed, the small cells induce a
qb 0
strong acceleration of the flame, particularly distinguishable at S0L ¼ S ð2Þ
qu b
high flame radii, which are not considered in the present analysis.
The methodology chosen to determine the laminar burning with qb, the density of burned gases and qu, the density of unburned
velocity was fully described in [30–35]. The main steps are briefly gases. These densities were estimated from the EQUIL Code of the

(a) 0.1 MPa (b) 0.3 MPa

1.2 1.2

0.3 MPa (b), 423 K

Burned gas Markstein length (mm)
Burned gas Markstein length (mm)

B0/E0
B100
0.8 0.8
E100

0.4 0.4

0.1 MPa (a), 423 K

0 B0/E0 0
B100
E100

-0.4 -0.4
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Equivalence Ratio Equivalence Ratio

(c) 0.5 MPa (d) 1.0 MPa

1.2 1.2

0.5 MPa (c), 423 K 1.0 MPa (d), 423 K

Burned gas Markstein length (mm)
Burned gas Markstein length (mm)

B0/E0 B0/E0
B100 0.8 B100
0.8
E100 E100

0.4 0.4

0 0

-0.4 -0.4
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
Equivalence Ratio Equivalence Ratio

Fig. 5. Comparison of Burned gas Markstein lengths evolution versus equivalence ratio for pure iso-octane, butanol and ethanol at initial pressures of 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and 1.0 MPa.
314
Chemkin package [36] with an oxidation kinetic scheme of
iso-octane/ethanol/butanol. An oxidation kinetic scheme, based on
the oxidation kinetic schemes of a butanol/gasoline surrogate from
Dagaut and Togbé [37], ethanol from Leplat et al. [38] and iso-
octane from Curran et al. [39] was used.
4. Results
4.1. Pressure effects on pure fuels
In Fig. 3, the results of the laminar flame velocity for pure buta-
nol (B100) for different pressures are plotted versus the equiva-
lence ratio. The increase in the initial pressure leads to a
decrease in the laminar flame velocity, but with a maximum value
close to an equivalence ratio of 1.1 (up to 0.5 MPa). This decrease is
not linear, as shown by Gülder [13], who proposed the following
laminar burning velocity correlation:
 b
Pu
S0L ¼ S0L;0 
P0
with P0 the reference pressure (=0.1 MPa) and the pressure expo-
nent 0 < b < 1.
Similar trends were observed for other pure fuels.
To compare different pure fuels, the results of the laminar burn-
ing velocity for iso-octane (B0/E0), butanol (B100) and ethanol
(E100) are plotted in Fig. 4 versus the equivalence ratio for the four
initial pressure values. As expected, the use of alcohols provides a
higher laminar flame velocity compared to iso-octane and the val-
ues for ethanol are higher than for butanol.
When the initial pressure increases, the laminar flame velocity
values of ethanol and butanol become increasingly close and final-
ly become similar; the difference between alcohols and iso-octane
is also reduced.
It can be noticed that the more the initial pressure increases, the
more the flame becomes cellular for lower equivalence ratios: 1.4,
1.3 and 1.1 for 0.3, 0.5 and 1.0 MPa respectively. With the rise in
pressure, the flame thickness decreases, and therefore the temper-
ature gradient and the hydrodynamic instabilities increase. As the
thermal-diffusive instabilities can no longer compensate the
hydrodynamic instabilities, the cells are initiated on the flame
70
Laminar Burning Velocity (cm/s)
60
50
0.1 MPa, 423 K
B0
40 B25
B50
B75
B100
30
0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Equivalence ratio
Fig. 6. Laminar burning velocity evolution versus equivalence ratio for butanol/iso-
octane blends for an initial pressure of 0.1 MPa.
G. Broustail et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 310–317
front. This induces an experimental limitation of laminar burning
velocity determination at higher initial pressure on the rich side.
However, as it is possible to have an air/fuel mixture combustion
with a higher equivalence ratio (1.4 and 1.3 respectively at 0.3
and 0.5 MPa) with ethanol, this indicates that this fuel must be less
sensitive to external disruptions (e.g. electrodes).
Fig. 5 compares the results of the burned gas Markstein lengths
for the three pure fuels versus the equivalence ratio for the four
initial pressure values. For all fuels, with a rise in the equivalence
ratio, the burned gas Markstein lengths decrease, indicating less
sensitivity of the flame to the total stretch rate. Moreover, the
burned gas Markstein lengths are lower for alcohols, in particular
for ethanol. This was observed at 0.1 and 0.3 MPa. Beyond this
pressure, no particular trend was observed between the fuels.
However, some burned gas Markstein lengths reach negative val-
ues in particular for iso-octane and butanol, which correspond to
thermal-diffusive instabilities of the flame front and give birth to
new cells [40]. This phenomenon was observed for rich air/fuel
mixtures and initial pressures higher than 0.1 MPa. However, for
ð3Þ
ethanol, the burned gas Markstein lengths remain positive, which
underlines its better flame stability.
It is important to note that the determination of burned gas
Markstein lengths at 1.0 MPa is difficult because of cellularity
occurrences.
4.2. Iso-octane/alcohol blends
In Figs. 6 and 7, the results of the laminar burning velocity
respectively for butanol/iso-octane blends and ethanol/iso-octane
blends are compared and plotted versus the equivalence ratio for
an initial pressure of 0.1 MPa. The addition of alcohol to iso-octane
produces an increase in the laminar burning velocity from pure
iso-octane to pure alcohol over the whole equivalence ratio range.
Although the smaller difference between the laminar burning
velocities of iso-octane and alcohols induces very similar values
for alcohol blends, certain trends can be identified as a function
of the increase in initial pressure.
Figs. 8 and 9 compare the results of the laminar burning velocity
respectively for butanol/iso-octane and ethanol/iso-octane blends
versus the volume fraction of butanol for an initial pressure of
70
Laminar Burning Velocity (cm/s)
60
50
0.1 MPa, 423 K
E0
40 E25
E50
E75
E100
30
1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Equivalence Ratio
Fig. 7. Laminar burning velocity evolution versus equivalence ratio for ethanol/iso-
octane blends for an initial pressure of 0.1 MPa.
 G. Broustail et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 310–317 315

70 where blend means that an iso-octane/alcohol blend is applied to

the variable, and Alc an alcohol.
 vi is defined as v ¼ XNi ;Ni .
60 mel

 i refers to the alcohol or C8H18 and: vC3 H18 þ vAlc ¼ 1.

Laminar Burning Velocity (cm/s)

 Tad, I is the adiabatic flame temperature and N the burned gas

50 mole number of the combustion reaction.

Fig. 10 plots the results of the adiabatic flame temperature for

40
the three pure fuels versus the equivalence ratio for an initial pres-
0.1 MPa, 423 K, Butanol sure of 0.1 MPa. For all the equivalence ratios, iso-octane has the
30 ϕ=0.8 highest adiabatic flame temperature, followed by butanol and eth-
ϕ=0.9 anol. However, the adiabatic flame temperatures for the three pure
ϕ=1.0 fuels are quite similar: the maximum difference between iso-
20
ϕ=1.1 octane and butanol is 15 K (i.e. a relative deviation below 1%)
ϕ=1.2 and between iso-octane and ethanol 40 K (i.e. a relative deviation
10 ϕ=1.3 below 2%). Similar tendencies were found with the pressure rise.
ϕ=1.4 Eq. (4) was therefore simplified to:

0 S0L;mel ð/; Pu Þ ¼ expðvC 8 H18  lnðSL;C8 H18 ð/; Pu ÞÞ þ lnðvAlc  S0L;Alc ð/; Pu ÞÞÞ
0 20 40 60 80 100 ð5Þ
Alcohol concentration (% vol)
And the laminar burning velocity for the three pure fuels was deter-
Fig. 8. Evolution of laminar burning velocity for butanol/iso-octane blends versus mined from the experimental correlation as a function of equiva-
the volume fraction of butanol for an initial pressure of 0.1 MPa. lence ratio and pressure based on Metghalchi and Keck’s [43]
formula (P0 the pressure reference, i.e. 0.1 MPa and n, the pressure
coefficient) and with adequate coefficients (Table 2).
70  ðn21Þ
P u
S0L;fuel ð/; pu Þ ¼ S0L;fuel ð/Þ  ð6Þ
P0
60
The correlation was validated for iso-octane/ethanol and iso-
Laminar burning velocity (cm/s)

octane/butanol blends on a 0.7–1.4 equivalence ratio range and

50 for initial pressures from 0.1 to 1.0 MPa, at an initial temperature

40
2350

0.1 MPa, 423 K, Ethanol

30
ϕ=0.8
2300
ϕ=0.9
Adiabatic flame temperature (K)

20 ϕ=1.0
ϕ=1.1 2250
ϕ=1.2
10
ϕ=1.3
ϕ=1.4 2200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Alcohol concentration (% vol) 2150
0.1 MPa
B0/E0
Fig. 9. Evolution of laminar burning velocity for ethanol/iso-octane blends versus B100
the volume fraction of ethanol for an initial pressure of 0.1 MPa. 2100 E100

0.1 MPa. For all equivalence ratios, the laminar flame velocity in-
creases with the butanol concentration. 2050
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
4.3. Correlation Equivalence ratio

Based on these experimental data, the correlation developed by Fig. 10. Evolution of adiabatic flame temperature for pure iso-octane, butanol and
Hirasawa et al. [41] and Ji and Egolfopoulos [42] was used to pre- ethanol versus the equivalence ratio for an initial pressure of 0.1 MPa.
dict the laminar burning velocity as a function of the equivalence
ratio and the initial pressure and for different iso-octane/ethanol
and iso-octane/butanol blends. The correlation is based on: Table 2
Coefficient values of the correlation.
vC8 H18  T ad;C8 H18  lnðSL;C8 H18 ð/; Pu ÞÞ
lnðS0L;blend ð/; Pu ÞÞ ¼ A1 A2 Um n
T ad;blend
Isooctane 57.047 190.854 1.097 1.480
vAlc  T ad;Alc lnðS0L;Alc ð/; Pu ÞÞ Butanol 64.874 194.886 1.101 1.507
þ ð4Þ Ethanol 68.793 200.243 1.100 1.432
T ad;blend
316 G. Broustail et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 310–317
of 423 K. The values given by the correlation were compared to the
270 experimental data points (including all the equivalence ratios,
the initial pressures and the iso-octane/alcohol blends), and the
mean relative deviation was found to be around 2.3%, which is quite
good.
5. Conclusion
By performing experiments in a constant volume vessel at an
initial temperature of 423 K and initial pressures of 0.1, 0.3, 0.5
and 1.0 MPa, the laminar burning velocity evolution versus the
equivalence ratio in the range of 0.7–1.4 was determined for iso-
octane/ethanol and iso-octane/butanol blends with 0, 25, 50, 75
and 100 vol% of alcohol.
The addition of alcohol to iso-octane increases the laminar
burning velocity for all equivalence ratios. Besides, ethanol has a
stronger impact than butanol. As the pressure increases, the lami-
nar burning velocities of the two alcohols become closer and the
difference between alcohols and iso-octane is also reduced. Glob-
ally, the laminar burning velocity increases linearly with the addi-
tion of alcohol.
The addition of alcohol, especially ethanol, decreases the
burned gas Markstein lengths, which means that an ethanol flame
is less sensitive to the total stretch rate and thermo-diffusive insta-
bilities. However, for rich air/fuel mixtures, the burned gas Mark-
stein lengths of iso-octane and butanol become negative, which
implies a strong dependence of the flames on thermo-diffusive
instabilities, inducing the development of cells. These tendencies
were observed for initial pressures of 0.1 and 0.3 MPa. Thereafter,
no tendencies were evidenced.
Finally, with the experimental data obtained, a correlation for
the laminar burning velocity of iso-octane/alcohols blends was
proposed, validated on a 0.7–1.4 equivalence ratio range and for
initial pressures from 0.1 to 1.0 MPa, with a very good precision
(mean relative deviation between the correlation and the experi-
mental data of 2.3%).
Acknowledgements
This project is cofinanced by the European Union. Europe is
committed to the region Centre with the European Regional Devel-
opment Fund. The authors acknowledge B. Moreau for his technical
assistance and help.
References
[1] Jeuland N, Montagne X, Gautrot X. Potentiality of ethanol as a fuel for
dedicated engine. Oil Gas Sci Technol 2004;59(6):559–70.
[2] Celik MB. Experimental determination of suitable ethanol–gasoline blend rate
at high compression ratio for gasoline engine. Appl Therm Eng 2008;28(5–
6):396–404.
[3] Yücesu HS, Topgül T, Çinar C, Okur M. Effect of ethanol–gasoline blends on
engine performance and exhaust emissions in different compression ratios.
Appl Therm Eng 2006;26(17–18):2272–8.
[4] Ceviz MA, Yuksel F. Effects of ethanol-unleaded gasoline blends on cyclic
variability and emissions in an S.I. engine. Appl Therm Eng 2005;25(5–
6):917–25.
[5] Gautam M, Martin II DW. Combustion characteristics of higher-alcohol/
gasoline blends. Proc Instn Mech Engrs (Part A) 2000;214:497–511.
[6] Yacoub Y, Bata R, Gautam M. The performance and emission characteristics of
C1–C5 alcohol–gasoline blends with matched oxygen content in a single-
cylinder spark ignition engine. Proc Instn Mech Engrs (Part A) 1997;212:
363–79.
[7] Alasfour FN. Butanol - a single-cylinder engine study: availability analysis.
Appl Therm Eng 1997;17(6):537–49.
[8] Hess G, BP and DuPont to Make ‘‘Biobutanol’’. Chemical and engineering news;
2006. p. 2.
[9] Alasfour FN. NOx emission from a spark ignition engine using 30% iso-butanol–
gasoline blend. Part 1 – Preheating inlet air. Appl Therm Eng 1998;
18(5):245–56.
[10] Alasfour FN. NOx emission from a spark ignition engine using 30% iso-
butanol–gasoline blend. part 2 – ignition timing. Appl Therm Eng 1998;
18(8):609–18.
[11] Dernotte J, Mounaim-Rousselle C, Halter F, Seers P. Evaluation of butanol–
gasoline blends in a port fuel-injection, spark-ignition engine. Oil Gas Sci
Technol 2010;65:345–51.
[12] Wallner T, Frazee R. Study of regulated and non-regulated emissions from
combustion of gasoline, alcohol fuels and their blends in a DI–S.I. engine. SAE
2010. [2010-01-1571].
[13] Gülder OL. Laminar burning velocities of methanol, ethanol and isooctane-air
mixtures. In: 19th Symposium (international) on combustion; 1982.
[14] Liao SY, Jiang DM, Huang ZH, Zeng K, Cheng Q. Determination of the laminar
burning velocities for mixtures of ethanol and air at elevated temperatures.
Appl Therm Eng 2007;27(2–3):374–80.
[15] Egolfopoulos FN, Du DX, Law CK. A study on ethanol oxidation kinetics in
laminar premixed flames, flow reactors, and shock tubes. In: 24th Symposium
(international) on combustion; 1992.
[16] Bradley D, Lawes M, Mansour MS. Explosion bomb measurements of ethanol-
air laminar gaseous flame characteristics at pressures up to 1.4 MPa. Combust
Flame 2009;156(7):1462–70.
[17] Marshall SP, Taylor S, Stone CR, Davies TJ, Cracknell RF. Laminar burning
velocity measurements of liquid fuels at elevated pressures and temperatures
with combustion residuals. Combust Flame 2011;158(10):1920–32.
[18] Eisazadeh-Far K, Moghaddas A, Al-Mulki J, Metghalchi H. Laminar burning
speeds of ethanol/air/diluent mixtures. Proc Combust Inst 2011;33(1):
1021–7.
[19] Beeckmann J, Röhl O, Peters N. Numerical and experimental investigation of
laminar burning velocities of iso-octane, ethanol and n-butanol. SAE
2009;56:1-6.[2009-01-2784].
[20] Veloo PS, Wang YL, Egolfopoulos FN, Westbrook CK. A comparative
experimental and computational study of methanol, ethanol, and n-butanol
flames. Combust Flame 2010;157(10):1989–2004.
[21] van Lipzig JPJ, Nilsson EJK, de Goey LPH, Konnov AA. Laminar burning
velocities of n-heptane, iso-octane, ethanol and their binary and tertiary
mixtures. Fuel 2011;90(8):2773–81.
[22] Konnov AA, Meuwissen RJ, de Goey LPH. The temperature dependence of the
laminar burning velocity of ethanol flames. Proc Combust Inst 2011;33(1):
1011–9.
[23] Varea E, Modica V, Vandel A, Renou B. Measurement of laminar burning
velocity and markstein length relative to fresh gases using a new
postprocessing procedure: application to laminar spherical flames for
methane, ethanol and isooctane/air mixtures. Combust Flame 2012;159(2):
577–90.
[24] Sarathy SM, Thomson MJ, Togbé C, Dagaut P, Halter F, Mounaim-Rousselle C.
An experimental and kinetic modeling study of n-butanol combustion.
Combust Flame 2009;156(4):852–64.
[25] Gu X, Huang Z, Wu S, Li Q. Laminar burning velocities and flame instabilities of
butanol isomers-air mixtures. Combust Flame 2010;157(12):2318–25.
[26] Veloo PS, Egolfopoulos FN. Flame propagation of butanol isomers/air mixtures.
Proc Combust Inst 2011;33(1):987–93.
[27] Grana R, Frassoldati A, Faravelli T, Niemann U, Ranzi E, Seiser R, et al. An
experimental and kinetic modeling study of combustion of isomers of butanol.
Combust Flame 2010;157(11):2137–54.
[28] Broustail G, Seers P, Halter F, Moréac G, Mounaim-Rousselle C. Experimental
determination of laminar burning velocity for butanol and ethanol iso-octane
blends. Fuel 2011;90(1):1–6.
[29] Bradley D, Hicks RA, Lawes M, Sheppard CGW, Woolley R. The measurement of
laminar burning velocities and markstein numbers for iso-octane-air and iso-
octane-n-heptane-air mixtures at elevated temperatures and pressures in an
explosion bomb. Combust Flame 1998;115(1–2):126–44.
[30] Tahtouh T, Halter F, Samson E, Mounaïm-Rousselle C. Effects of hydrogen
addition and nitrogen dilution on the laminar flame characteristics of
premixed methane–air flames. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34(19):
8329–38.
[31] Tahtouh T, Halter F, Mounaïm-Rousselle C. Measurement of laminar burning
speeds and markstein lengths using a novel methodology. Combust Flame
2009;156(9):1735–43.
[32] Kelley AP, Law CK. Nonlinear effects in the extraction of laminar flame speeds
from expanding spherical flames. Combust Flame 2009;156(9):1844–51.
[33] Law CK, Sung CJ. Structure, aerodynamics, and geometry of premixed
flamelets. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2000;26(4–6):459–505.
[34] Bush WB, Fendell FE. Asymptotic analysis of laminar flame propagation for
general lewis numbers. Combust Sci Technol 1971;2:271–85.
[35] Halter F, Tahtouh T, Mounaïm-Rousselle C. Nonlinear effects of stretch on the
flame front propagation. Combust Flame 2010;157(10):1825–32.
[36] Kee RJ, Rupley FM, Miller JA. Chemkin-II: a fortran chemical kinetics package
for the analysis of gas phase chemical kinetics. Sandia National Laboratories;
1989.
[37] Dagaut P, Togbé C. Oxidation kinetics of butanol–gasoline surrogate mixtures
in a jet-stirred reactor: experimental and modeling study. Fuel 2008;87(15–
16):3313–21.
[38] Leplat N, Dagaut P, Togbé C, Vandooren J. Numerical and experimental study of
ethanol combustion and oxidation in laminar premixed flames and in jet-
stirred reactor. Combust Flame 2010;158(4):705–25.
[39] Curran HJ, Gaffuri P, Pitz WJ, Westbrook CK. A comprehensive modeling study
of iso-octane oxidation. Combust Flame 2002;129(3):253–80.
 G. Broustail et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 310–317 317

[40] Poinsot T, Veynante D. Theoretical and numerical combustion. R.T. Edwards;
2001. pp. 473.
[41] Hirasawa T, Sung CJ, Joshi A, Yang Z, Wang H, Law CK. Determination of
laminar flame speeds using digital particle image velocimetry: binary fuel
blends of ethylene, n-butane, and toluene. Proc Combust Inst 2002;29(2):
1427–34.
[42] Ji C, Egolfopoulos FN. Flame propagation of mixtures of air with binary liquid
fuel mixtures. Proc Combust Inst 2011;33(1):955–61.
[43] Metghalchi M, Keck JC. Burning velocities of mixtures of air with methanol,
isooctane and indolene at high pressure and temperature. Combust Flame
1982;48:191–210.