4.6 Article

Performance and emission analysis of a multi cylinder gasoline engine operating at different alcohol-gasoline blends

期刊

RSC ADVANCES
卷 4, 期 53, 页码 27898-27904

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c4ra04580g

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Malaya [CG 060-2013]
  2. High Impact Research grant titled: Development of Alternative and Renewable Energy Career (DAREC) [UM.C/HIR/MOHE/ENG/60]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alcohols are potential renewable alternatives for gasoline because of their bio-based origin. Although ethanol has been successfully implemented in many parts of the world, other alcohols may also be utilized, such as methanol, propanol, and butanol. These alcohols contain much energy and a high octane number. Furthermore, they displace petroleum. Therefore, this study focuses on methanol, ethanol, propanol, and butanol as gasoline fuel alternatives. We conducted tests in a four-cylinder gasoline engine under the wide open throttle condition at varying speeds and results. This engine was fueled with 20% methanol-80% gasoline (M20), 20% ethanol-80% gasoline (E20), 20% propanol-80% gasoline (P20), and 20% butanol-80% gasoline (B20). M20, E20, P20, and B20 displayed brake specific fuel consumptions levels and break thermal efficiencies that were higher than those of gasoline at 7.78%, 5.17%, 4.43%, and 1.95% and 3.6%, 2.15%, 0.7%, and 1.86%, respectively. P20 and B20 showed better torque than E20, but they consumed more fuel. Moreover, the alcohol-gasoline blends generated a higher peak in-cylinder pressure than pure gasoline. As gasoline fuel alternatives, propanol and butanol were more effective than gasoline in engines. In addition, the alcohol-gasoline blends also emitted less carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon than gasoline. However, E20 emitted more nitrogen oxide than the other alcohol-gasoline blends. Thus, propanol and butanol are more effective options than ethanol for a gasoline engine in terms of fuel properties, engine performance, and emissions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据