Energy 18 2017) 613-621 ELSEVIER Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eneray = Autoignition of blends of n-butanol and ethanol with diesel or biodiesel fuels in a constant-volume combustion chamber Magin Lapuerta *’, Alexis Cova-Bonillo Juan José Hernandez *, David Fernéndez-Rodriguez °, * Univers of Castle ta Manca. cuca Tec Supero de genres nds, Efile Pauenc, Ava, Can fst Cel 1507, haa Rea, pat nies de Oren, Departamento de ingeiera ince, Grup de nesta de Ssemas Dispersasyelectraquimc, Per La Cu, Venezuela ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Trice sor Received 30 Api 2016 Received in esd orm Recently, there is increas vest in using batanolas also for diesel fuels, This work newable component not only fr gasoline but estigates ie elect ofits concentration on diesel and biodiesel blends 22 September 2016 ‘Accepted 2 Ocoee 2016 ‘aad ontine 31 October 2015 Ira Combustion Dele ine ‘Atoanion xno! tana! Brie ‘nthe autoignition time, comparatively to equivalent blends with ethanol, ina constant-volume com bustion chamber. The increase of alcohol content in diese! or biodiesel led to an increase in autoigition times. Such inerease was not linear bat sharper for high alcohol contents, and was higher with ethanol than with butanol For butanol blends, the inerease in delay time was very similar when diesel or bio- iesel were used. The maximum pressure during combustion decreases as the alcohol content was increased, especially in the case of ethanol, as a consequence of energy, chemical and dilation effect However, or low ethanol or butanol concentrations, some increases in te pressure peaks were observed ‘bya combination of compensating elects: increase in the amount of premixed combustion and increase inthe fame speed. For 10% vj alcohol blends in diesel or biodiesel, the delay times decreased as both the intial pressure and the initial temperature were increased, the latter effect being slightly higher with biodiesel compared to diesel ‘© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Lt, This isan open access article under th cc BY-NC-ND license (htp:ereativecommonsorglicenses)by-ne-nd}40)). 1. Introduction ‘The continued depletion of oil reserves, the fluctuating but net increase in fuel prices, the new policies promoting the use of advanced biofuels and the increasingly harder restrictions on temissions for vehicle engines, have led researchers to seek new forms of energy that reduce the dependence of fossil fuels In this sense, new fuels from waste or lignocellulosic materials or alter- native production techniques appear to be able to reduce life-cycle greenhouse emissions and thus to contribute to restrain global warming, Diesel fuels can be blended with bioalcohols as a means to introduce a renewable fraction and 10 provide certain oxygen content. This renewable fraction could be additional to that already included in many diesel fuels with some biodiesel content, as it is usual in many countries. Some studies, performed in diferent setups and under different conditions, have reported reductions in + corresponding autor "malades: gin Lapyerts@uem.es(M apucra) utp do ar! 101016 energy 2016:0.090 emissions of particulate matter and carbon monoxide when diesel tengines operate with ethanol and butanol blends |~!), although ‘not unanimous trends have been reported in nitrogen oxides and ‘unburned hydrocarbons especially at low loads (3.5~8]. The hy- ddroxyl group of the alcohol molecule contributes to reduce soot {formation and consequently particulate emissions, even more than ‘other functional groups with similar oxygen content 9-12} ‘Among the alcohols to be used in diesel blends, ethanol and butanol have proved to have a significant potential to reduce life-cycle ssreenhouse gas emissions, as far as they can be produced from biological processes. Specifically, butanol can be produced from various methods, among which acetobutylicum fermentation (ABE) hhas superior interest, as far as the bio-acetone obtained as co- product is valued as such [14]. Ndaba et al. (15) suggest that some chemical conversion routes are preferable to the conven- tional ABE process, because the reaction proceeds more quickly ‘compared tothe fermentation route and fewer steps are required 10 produce n-butanol. Zheng et al, [16] made a review on the latest advances in butanol fermentation particularly from the perspective ‘of genetic engineering and fermentation technology. (9905442)0 206 The Athos Pash by Evie Lid Thi i an open aces atic under the CCBY-NC-ND Heese (heavens cxpiensesy- new.ou M Lapua eb / nergy 18 (2017) 612-621 [A previous work was published about blending stability, Im bricity, viscosity and col filter plugging point as the key properties of ethanol and butanol blends (among others) with diese fuel [1]. ‘Additionally, among the properties affecting the combustion pro- cess, cetane number is limiting one. Alcohols exhibit low cetane ‘numbers, and therefore, only minor concentrations of these alco- hols in the blends are recommended for use in unmodified diesel engines. The higher cetane number of butanol with respect to ethanol, together with its better miscibility, higher heating value and lower hydrophilic character, suggest that n-butanol is a better renewable component than ethanol in diesel blends (18,19), and consequently its maximum concentration in diesel blends could be increased with respect to that recommended for ethanol Cetane number of a fuel is defined as the concentration of n- hhexadecane in heptamethyinonane providing the same auto- ignition delay as that ofthe fuel. However, blends of these reference fuels do not provide autoignition times proportional to their con- centrations. Similarly, blends of alcohols with diesel or biodiesel blends are not expected to provide autoignition times proportional to their composition, Instead, the most reactive components (those with shorter autoignition times) contribute to shorten the auto- ignition time more that the least reactive ones to enlarge it [20 ‘Therefore, experimental autoignition studies with these blends are necessary to evaluate their autoignition behavior, Other studies have been previously published reporting auto- ignition results from alcohol blends in diesel or biodiesel fuels, or surrogates, in constant-volume combustion chambers, but far from ‘modern diesel-like injection conditions (21-23). The impact of ethanol and butanol concentrations on the autoignition time of diesel and biodiesel blends is analysed in this study. The effects ofthe initial temperature and pressure, as well as that of the equivalence ratio, are also studied for 10% alcohol blends. 2. Experimental procedure and fuels ‘The experiments were carried out in a Cetane ID510 by Herzog, which is basically a constant-volume combustion chamber, equip~ ped with a common-rail diesel injector (operating at 1000 bar i jection pressure) and with different temperature and pressure sensors: a dynamic pressure sensor to measure the chamber pressure, a static pressure sensor to correct the temperature offset of the dynamic sensor, an injection pressure sensor, an inlet air pressure sensor and two thermocouples type K for the chamber Inner wall and the cooling jacket. The experimental procedure proposed in Ref. [24] was followed, and pressure signals were recorded and analysed with a diagnostic model described in Ref, [25] Initial chamber temperature and pressure were modified by modulating. the previous heating/cooling of the combustion chamber jacket and the inlet air pressure reduction from the air bottles. The amount of fuel injected was modified with the injection pulse width. Most of the tests were done with injection pulse of 25 ms, and thus with approximately equal injected volume. Nevertheless, the exact volume injected per pulse was calibrated for each pure fuel. In all cases, the combustion process occurred in two stages, and therefore, two different ignition delays were defined: the first was denoted as [Der because it was associated t0 the cool flame stage, and the second, IDy., is associated with the ‘main combustion. The procedure to determine these times is described in Ref. (24) The base fuels used for alcohol blending were diesel and bio- diesel. Tests were made for blends of butanol and diesel (Bu-D), ethanol and diesel Et-D), butanol and biodiesel (Bu-B),and ethanol and biodiesel (Et-B), at different aleohol concentrations, avoiding the use of emulsifiers. The nomenclature includes the volume percentage of alcohol in the blend. Thus, Et10-B refers toa blend of ethanol with 10% and 90% biodiesel, Table 1 shows the main properties of the four fuels used to prepare the blends. It should be noted that, despite the large differences between most of their properties, the derived cetane numbers are very similar for both diesel and biodiesel fuels, which permitted to concentrate the study on the effec of alcohols, rather than in that of the base Fuels. Diese fuel was supplied by Repsol, and had zero oxygen con- tent. The biodiesel fuel used was donated by Bio Oils and was produced from soybean and palm oils. Table 2 shows the methyl ester profile of the biodiesel fuel tested with indication of number of carbon atoms ofthe acid chain (n) and number of double bonds (db). Butanol was supplied by Green Biologics Ltd. as a member of the Consortium of ButaNexT Project (see acknowledgements). Finally, ethanol was donated by Abengoa Bioenergy. Blends with 10% alcohol (ethanol or butanol) were selected to study the effec ofthe initial pressure and temperature conditions and of the equivalence ratio, This choice is based on the promotion ‘able Propectisof the fs ued oe blends Tropertes Method Dies Bidieeh Banal mano Parity (& viv 7 - >on so0 Benshy at 13°C (eg?) EN IS0 3675 suo jaa 13 Kinematic vseosty at 20 C(t) ENISO 3104 300 tn 22 ger eating value (Mj) une sis “77 2aer san tare beating valu (M4 Une sii23 293 asst 20 Clues) saz Sa a6 (wt 2) 125 nus, na owe) a aan 282 ‘Water conten (ppm we) EN 180 12957 4170 20m tae Molecular weight (g/km) 20820 aso an ling pont) asm D5 9-385 fast za Standart enthalpy of vaporization (Wks) 735 esa Hicatomi rato 13 3 250 Stoichiometne ular ratio nasi yoo uittas cece) EN 16 20 “st “st brie (S14) (um) ENISD 121564 srs us? snus Derived ctane mmber ASIN D761 snes fy fe 7 Data measured at Universi of Casita Mancha ® bata provide by supplier «Estimated fom the corresponding sate corelation proposed by Per 26] with modiied exponents a propose i Rel 27) “Taken om Re [2825Me tapers ea / Energy 18 (2017) 513-221 ‘able? Met ester prea bids Metter mw ‘aurie or Maisie 21 Palme 15.62 Mararc foe Margiroe sot sclinaene 539 dee 035 Ugnocece ais ‘of use of biofuels proposed by European directives 2009/28(CE [30] and 1513)2015/CE [31 witich will lead to a scenario where trans- port fuels will include 10% of advanced biofuels in 2020, 3, Results and discusion 24. Effet of alcohol content ‘The resulting values for IDcr and IDyy and pressure peaks are listed in Table 3 for all tests. Als, standard deviations from the 15, cycles recorded for each blend are included forall the results pre- sented hereinafter. In all cases they are small with respect to the variations found, proving the significance of the trends discussed. Inthis table, the equivalence ratio (defined as the ratio between the actual mass fuel/air ratio and the stoichiometric one, and denoted as relative F{A) is also listed for each test. As expected based on the etane numbers, increasing the alcohol content always led to a significant increase in both [Der and [Dy as shown in Fg. 1, where the average pressure trace obtained from 15 individual pressure signals re displayed for each blend. Logarithmic scale i used in the horizontal axis fora better discrimination of pressure signals with low alcohol contents. The trends in bath ignition delays are better ‘observed in Fig. 2. Such an increase was not linear with the alcohol content, but was sharper at high alcohol contents, which is in agreement with other studies [3]. In the case of ethanol-diesel blends, no experimental results were obtained from 15% to 65% ethanol content, due to the weak miscibility of blends within this ange, where emulsifiers would be necessary at room temperature NNo tests could be done for higher ethanol contents because they resulted in delay times higher than 120 ms, which are the ‘maximum data acquisition window. The result shown for Et65-D blend was obtained after heating the mixture up to 40 °C to reach enough miscibility. Fig, 2¢) and d) shows the same information as a) and b), respectively, at concentrations under 25%. For butanol blends, the increase in delay time was very similar when diesel or biodiesel ‘were used in the blends, For the same alcohol content, the increase in ignition delay was always higher for ethanol than for butanol blends, consistently with the lower cetane number of ethanol. Two factors contribute to this trend: a) the lower carbon number of ethanol with respect to butanol and b) the lower equivalence ratio of the mixture of ethanol blends and air with respect to the cor- responding butanol blends (see Table 3). IF the delay time IDy is compared for blend Et65-D and for net butanol (both with 0.28 ‘equivalence ratio), it can be observed that the delay time for the ethanol blend is still much larger than that for butanol, proving that differences in equivalence ratio did not affect the observed trends able? z 3 sombstin, Dy and ool ame combust ely te for Ponta Dis) 1s 5) ieee FA 03840 a Ponta) Tat) i Felatwe FA 03849 03825 pis) TO wh 35783 = 0058 420703-= 00581 24805 2 00250 = 0068 35793 «005m 37382 £0009 235 = 00250 25705 200318, 230 250 as a 25 2 ® 88 g 8 8Sancndon SSgS5E88 2a SE282333 22 T1979 2 00785 00770 e078 4g9e3 = 00581, zlzs g/88 32as3 200201 25200 + 00320 12954 07068 0.858 103082 «02864 6570 = 00707 45874 = 00460 5788 2 02836 3699 200361 2005 = 00827 73100) 07150 04038 230 250 230 25 ss 25 ree poe) (connedTsoroFoiey —cicooF reese LaTeO ‘Orso isto” om100 cL16e GsovoF core FaeoOT EINE yeseo vaso ezsre — seev0= oosre sce Hs0rD Sea6% 99200 FORE Sizcorssere Disrorere9 LIED war0# ceeeL ECL eLOLD eisroriseot _carro+Rs6s _ozieo suzo* oust + 250 M Lapua eb / nergy 18 (2017) 612-621 7 0 ad 7 Tau = leaves ye2a07 Zoe IS OELO=esoesE SURI TLLHLS OLHLO=ocIzzL — GLI BHOLOFGNINGE LLIZD=Zse¥LL SOHO HSSTL LENO *62966C —FERDOFGRUSE PSD FODILZ PARED Leto eeRGSE _FEROD TONLE Tea rar saya) Wisse Gray rar iat faa ivan Sets ere ce oe = 7 aaa TA tera tO tn ae (era eae‘taper eo nergy 18 (2017) 613-420 ems) 200 5 a0 ro & S20 300 fms) d) Fig 1 Pressure signal recorded during the combustion proces for) butana esl b ethane) Burana idles and () ethanol odlse! ends at py 21 bar in IDyy. Its also noticeable that, from a certain alcohol content ‘onwards, the differences between ethanol and butanol blends were ‘magnified when alcohols were blended with diesel fuel, whereas ‘they were minimized when they were blended with biodiesel ful. Another interesting observation is that, despite the similar cetane ‘humbers of diesel and biodiesel fuels, alcohols (but especially ethanol) enlarge the delay time more when blended with diesel than when blended with biodiesel fuel. This cannot be explained based on the equivalence ratio, since itis higher in the case of diesel blends. Some divergence with respect to the cetane number trendoe M Lapua eb / nergy 18 (2017) 612-621 © 0 =a eT 50 oa ? ame : 100 |[-@ -e8 o 0 = z 80 jt Exo £ g $ 0 2 “0 ra . ° ° 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 100 ‘Aol (4/9) ‘Aloha fe fa) (b) Dy (ms) & ai ei ee ‘Aleahol (uf) ‘) 0 5 10 35 20 25 30 Acoho! (v/v) (@ Fig 2 Vaton of nition delay time for col ame combustion, and sin combustion Dy wih tbe akhel content (butane! A thane @ in the leads (y~ 21 ba, was also observed in diesel engines when 15% alcohol was blended With diesel and biodiesel fuels (32), In general, similar trends can be observed for both ID and Dy and thus, the former will nt be presented in the following sections. ‘As shown in Fig. 3, the pressure peaks in the combustion, chamber were observed to decrease as the alcohol content increased, This decrease can be explained by a three-fold effect. First, the heat release is reduced as the alcahol content is increased due to the reduced heating value (energy elfec). Ths effect also includes the cooling effect from evaporation, which is higher for higher alcohol contents, due to their higher enthalpy of vapor- ization (see Table 1). Second, the blend is burned under leaner conditions since itrequires less ar-oxygen to react with the mass of fuel injected due to its increased bond-oxygen content (chemical effect). Third, the gaseous fuel is more and more diluted because {the autoignition time is larger (dilution effect), thus reducing the local equivalence ratio and making the combustion leaner. Both chemical and dilution effects contribute to reduce the flame ve- locity, and thus to enhance the heat transfer to the chamber walls during combustion. All three effects (energy effect, chemical effect and dilution effect) are more important in the case of ethanol bends than in the case of butanol blends. However, for low ethanol and butanol contents, some increases in the pressure peaks were ‘observed (up to 15% butanol content and up to 5% ethanol content). ‘These increases can be explained because the increase in the amount of premixed gaseous fuel-air mixture before combustion and the increase of the flame speed derived from the presence of alcohols in the blends (as proved in Ref. [33)) are more significant than the reduction inthe heating value when the aleohol is added. Further alcohol concentrations led to progressive reductions of the pressure peaks, as a consequence of the above mentioned energy, chemical and dilution effects ‘With respect to the pressure peaks observed for pure diesel and, biodiesel fuels, the above decribed increase in pressure peaks is ‘more relevant for butanol than for ethanol blends probably due to the higher heat of vaporization of ethanol (see ‘able 1), which re- duces slightly the initial cemperature and pressure. However, this is contrary to the higher increase in pressure peaks found with ethanol/biodiesel blends with respect to butanol/biodiesel blends [23]. In the present study, the highest increases in peak pressure are observed forn-butanol/diesel blends. For these blends, the range of ‘butanol contents leading to some inereases in the pressute peaks isMe tapers ea / Energy 18 (2017) 513-221 sw * Sa . ev “ Oe - ete « pa Ne a” S ae z ‘ — ae \ as ” ‘ ae Yar \ ody sf. : » teens Alcohol (% v/v) Fig. 3 Pressure peaks measur during the combustion process of each blend ws lebol content (butanol ethanol @) im the Bens (py 21 ba To 023°C) ‘extended to around 38% in volume. Ths effect can be confirmed in diesel engine tests, such as those carried out by Huang et al, who tested blends of 30% butanol with diesel fuel with no biodiesel content [24] 32, Effect of initial temperature ‘A comparison between the ignition delay times of blends Bu10- D, Et10-D, But0-B and Et10-B is shown in Fis. 4. Trends for ignition 1s —— e —— Bul 105 4 e009 os 4 = + -eu08 = 9 E08 85. 37s £ gos 55 y 4s as -se] SS 25 520 S40 S60 S80 600 620 640 660 rec) Fig. Vato of Dy with tal expert of camber lo 10 aaa (batal Bor ethagal @) ies 21 ba) delay times are very similar for the four blends. In all cases, the dolay times decreased as the initial temperature was increased, thus proving that there is no negative temperature coefficient in this range of temperature at this initial pressure. Again in this case increasing the initial temperature reduces the mass of air enclosed inthe combustion chamber thus increasing slightly the equivalence ratio (see Table 3), which may have some contribution to the de- creases in delay time. However, it can be noticed that for biodiesel blends (whose ID were initially slightly higher than those for diesel blends), when the initial temperature was increased, the reduction ‘of IDjy was higher. This effect can be explained because at low temperatures, the physical properties of biodiesel (higher density, viscosity and boiling point) slow down the atomization and evap- ‘ration processes, which affect the mixing of the air and fuel va- ppors. This makes the contribution of the physical processes to the utoignition delay (whichis basically associated with the chemical kinetics) more important than in the case of diesel blends Furthermore, as the temperature increases, the contribution ofthe physical processes becomes negligible in front of the reaction ‘mechanisms regardless the base fuel used. 3.3. Effect of intial pressure Fig. 5 shows (in black lines) that autoignition delay times in- «crease with decreasing initial pressure, for the same 10% blends as in the previous study, as expected. The same trend can be observed for all four blends, and no differences in increasing rates can be clearly distinguished between them. In this cas, differently to the previous studies with varying alcohol content and initial temper- ature, initial pressure variations involve significant changes in equivalence ratios (see Table 3)-Tests at 21, 16,11 and 9 bar implied Jean mixtures, with equivalence ratios around 0.35, 0.46, 0.7 and (0.83 respectively, whereas tests at 6 bar led to rich mixtures with equivalence ratios around 1.25. For this reason, additional tests ‘were made at 6,9, 11 and 16 bar (with results shown in gray lines) reducing the injection duration (and thus the injected fuel mass) t0 aes i= ws S00 \[ |=s-a0 as save a Bu10-0 Rel F/A~ 0.35) 335 | e— H10D el F/A~ 035) = # = BuID8 (Rel. F/A~ 0:35), zs +h @ i = © = £10-8 Rel F/A~ 0.35) 8235 18s 135 as 35. 5 7 9 mM 1 15 17 19 2 po (bar) ig 5. Variation iy within presse of camber or 10 lesa (tant A oF thanal @) bends (fy 623)20 M Lapua eb / nergy 18 (2017) 612-621 ensure that the equivalence ratios remained equal to those of tests made at 21 bat (around 0.35). These additional results (see also ‘Table 3) permitted to evaluate the effect of the initial pressure independently of the equivalence ratio. Ignition delay times for equal equivalence ratios increase exponentially with decreasing pressure, with exponents around ~ 184 in the case of diesel blends, and around ~ 1.39 inthe case of biodiesel blends, with minor effect of the alcohol blended. These pressure exponents are not far from other pressure exponents proposed in the literature for diesel [35] and biodiesel (36) fuels. Since the intial temperature in these tests was 602.5 °C, bio- diesel blends showed shorter delay times than diesel blends, consistentiy with the results discussed in the previous subsection. In all cases (diesel and biodiesel blends with ethanol or butanol), when the excess ait (which aets as a heat absorber) is reduced or even eliminated (black lines) ignition delays become shorter, compensating partially the effec ofthe decreasing pressure. ‘These results, together with the above described effect of the intial temperature imply that the initial thermodynamic condi- tions affect differently the chemical kinetics of diesel fuels (typi- cally composed of paraffins, naphtenes and aromatics) and biodiesel fuels (methyl esters), despite their similar cetane ‘numbers. However they have only minor effects on the kinetics of alcohols with different carbon numbers, despite their different cotane numbers. 4. Conclusions ‘The following conclusions can be drawn from the present study: + The increase in alcohol content in diesel or biodiesel fuels al- ‘ways led to an increase in both IDc and IDy. Such an increase ‘was sharper at high aleohol contents. This implies that weight or volume averaging of autoignition parameters (such as cetane number) is not an accurate method co predict the autoignition, behaviour of alcohol blends. ‘The increase in the delay time with the ethanol content is more prominent than for butanol, consistently with its lower cetane number. However, the differences in autoignition time become more visible when these alcohols are blended with diesel fuel whereas they become less significant when they are blended ‘with biodiesel fuel (atleast for high alcohol contents). For butanol blends, the increase in autoignition delay time is, very similar when diesel or biodiesel (with similar cetane numbers) were used in the blends. However, some differences appear when ethanol is blended with diese! or biodiesel fuels, with larger delay times in the former case. ©The maximum pressure in the combustion chamber was fbserved to decrease as the alcohol content was increased, especially in the case of ethanol, as a consequence of the reduced heating value, of the reduced equivalence ratio and of the over-dilution caused by their large delay times. «Some increases in the pressure peaks were observed ina nartow ange of low ethanol and butanol contents (especially in butanol blends), probably due to a combination of effects wiiich compensate the above mentioned effects: increase in the amount of premixed combustion and increase in the flame speed derived from the presence of alcohols in the blends. For blends with 10% v/v alcohol and 90% diesel (or biodiesel), the autoigntion delay times decrease as the temperature increases, ‘This effect is slightly more prominent for biodiesel than for diesel fuel as a consequence of the physical properties of bio- diesel (mainly higher viscosity and higher boiling point) which, Jead (0 some contribution of the physical delay especially at, ‘moderate temperatures. «For blends with 10% viv alcohol, the autoignition delay times increase exponentially as the pressure is decreased (for equal equivalence ratio). The fitting exponents ate similar for both, alcohols, but higher for diesel blends than for biodiesel ones. However, such increase is partly compensated by the increase in equivalence ratio, Acknowledgements ‘The research leading to these results was co-funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Pro- ‘gramme under grant agreement n° 640462 (ButaNexT project). Repsol, Bio Oils, Green Biologics and Abengoa Bioenergy are gratefully acknowledged for the donation of diese, biodiesel, n- butanol and ethanol fuels respectively. Nomenclature y— Volume ABE Acetone-butanol-ethanol 1D Ignition delay time Bu Butanol Et Ethanol D Diesel B Biodiese! n Number of carbon atoms db Number of double bonds Relative FA Equivalence ratio - Pressure t Time, duration T Temperature CHP Cold Filter Plugging Point Subscripts CF Cool Flame stage M Main combustion stage ° Initial conditions MAX Maximum) References 1M] Zheng 2, Wang X. Zona X. Hu B, Liu H,Y20 Mie al Experimental study on {he combustion and emissions fcingbodiesr- bapa, idesefethanel ‘sd budisel/2-dinctyfuran ona diesel engine Energy 2016, 15539~ 4 [2] Stn 2 Durgun 0, Atss ON Experimeatal investigation of t-bulanaiese ‘hel beds and anol famigation evaluation of engine pelormance, fexhaust emissions, heat ease and farkmabiity ena. EDR) COMETS Manag 2015:103:778-69, IB] Zhang. Yao M, zheng 7 iw Xu} Experimental study ofm-butano cation fn pesormance and ees with eel low terperaice combustion, Energy 2012347°515-2 [a Armas 0, Gare Cones Ramos A Pollutant emissions from New Bo bean Driving Cycle with ethanol and uranol diese Blends. Ful Process Fecnnal 2014 122'64-7 15] Swale I, Kt LAT, Bercoky A. Marawa M, enninge A. et a ombustion and emision characteristics of btanolesel fe blend I ‘orbo-charged compression ignition engine. Fel 2013310:408 18, {61 Lapoers M armas O, Heres JM Emissions fom ee oethano lend fan automotive desl engine. Ful 20083(1)25— 3 {P| Lapueea armas, Cares Contreras RE of ethanol on blending st Pity anise! engine emissions Energy Pls 2008523439 54, {a1 Lapses MHeenande jSarathy SM ets of meth sition on he ution of C16 alkanes, Combust me 2016:164 239-3 [a] Rakzpoulas De. fakopouls CD Papglannalls Rc, Kyasts DC. Combustion ea release ana of ethanol of butanol se fel lends ia ead) Dt diesel engine Fue 201195), 1855-186, 1W0} Giakoumis EC, Rakopouls CD, Dimaratos AM, Rakopoulos DC. Exhaust femissons with ethanol or butanol diesel fe! lenis during ansient, ‘peration:dreview-Renew Stain Energy Rev 2013:17170-90 Inn] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoles CD, Cukoumis EG. Impact of properties of ‘vegetable olf biodeac, ethanol and muta on the combustion 26d {missions of turbocharged HDDI diese engine operating under steady 20d(MLapure o/negy 18 (2017) 613-820 a transient conditions, Fuel 2015:156:1-19, 112] Ratopouls Dc Ratopoulos CD, Clakoums EC. intuence of properties of ‘arlou common bios onthe combustion and emision chatacters of Nighespeed DI (eet injection) desl ensine: vegetable ol, bovdiesl, thaol. ntact eter. Eneray 2014: 73:354~06. 113] Karabekes M, Hosoe Mt Performance and emission characteristics of dese ‘ngne sig sbutanl-ciesel ue Binds Rew Energy 20083815949, Ing Sthumaran i Gottumaals LD Rajsree K Alex , Pandey A. Caples 25: tao! fel om biomass: revising ABE fermentation Btls aerate feedstocks and conversion processen Asem Pes 201 115] Nba 8. Chiyanzu , Mare S. -Butanol served om biochemical and ‘hemicl rote!» review. techno Rep 2013381—9. 116] Zheng J, Tato ¥. Wang. Sonomot K. Recent advances to improue fermentave butanol production genetic engieeing and fermentation technology] Bans eng 201501141) 1-2. 117) Lapuerta M, Garcla-Contreas R,Campos-Femande J Docado MP. Stability, let, cost and cld-ow properties of alebol-diese! blends ere) Fes 20iostect 502, [18] Prom Pi Amanor Dos V, NlionR,Vadlan P, Mal Rho butanol vs. bio-ethanoatehnal and eeonome assessment or cx ae sehr fermented by yeast or clostridium acetbutyicam. Biomass Boeerey 20103344)515 24 lig} Aajesh Saravana s Use of higher alebol bau dese engines: are ew Renew Sustain Energy Rev 201636084115. [20] Lapuerta Herder j Sarathy SM. Pec of methyl sutttton onthe Soigntion of 16 alkanes Combust Fame 2016:104259- 69. {2t] Baumgardner ME Sarathy SM, Marchese A. Autoigntion characterization of Primary referee fuels and -eptanef butanol tices ih 2 constant ‘lumbe combustion device and homogeneaus charge compression gion ine, Eneray Fuss 2013:27.7778. 88. 122] Hoss FV Ramcharan A Dryer FL Relative eatves ofthe isomeric butanol and ethanl in an ition quay tester. Eevgy Pues 2011-25°3909 16. (23) LH ec Huon. vac M. Comparson of etanol nd baba as ales a Soybean beds using constant vlume combustion canbe Energy Pues Ina] Lapuerts M, Sanz-Argent Rane Rion characteristics of esl fe ina constant vlume bom under diese-ke contons fet ofthe operation paramecers Energy Fels 201428154554, (a5 Eapuers NM Sanz-Agent) Rabe R. Heat release determination in a constant ‘ome combustion shariber fom the instantancous cylinder pressure: APL “Theet ng 201463520" 7 126] Pong BE Praunitz JM, Cone JP. The propesties of ass and liquids. fourth ‘New York Metra 2000, [27] Viswanath DS Kulooe Nt Ona generalized Watson's relation fr latent heat of ‘aporatio, Can J Chem Eng 1967/5(1).29-31 ta) Zena P Kapur P Mite LA Development a opinization of methanl ‘eked compression gntion engines Tor passenger casa ight day ck SAE Techies Paper 191. p11 S10B51. {29} Xiaolu (King @ Lang 2, Junbua F, Zen M, Huimin X. Combustion and ‘ion characteristics of weakest engine operating on aco. Renew Eoergy 2005:50(13)2075-84 [0] Bietive 20028) onthe pomoton of the se of energy om renewable Sources and amending and subsequent repealing Directives 20017712 and 2o0s/soec 20030425 Of EU 2001 40°15- 62 [a1] Drecve 2015/1513/e€ amending Decve 9870 oaing tothe quay petrol and dlsel fue ana amending Derive 2000/28/E¢ on the po. ‘motion ofthe se of energy rom renewable sources. Of U 2008 239: ee [32] Laecias 6, tvinskas S, Marcia M. The fe of ethanol ces biodiesel blends on ‘combuston.pecfarmance and emssions of 3 ect injection feel engine nergy Covers Manag 2014:72:698 720. [B31 Brose G Ser Hater F MoreaeG. Mounsim Rouse Experimental ‘letras of laminar baring voy fr butanol and ethanol sy otane Bends Fue 20119: 1-6. (4) Huang Zhou C0, Wang @, Wang X. An experimental study 00 the ‘Combustion and emision charset ofa desl engine under lw tem erature combustion of ieseliastinen butanol blends. APD Enerey Bo16.170219-31. 185] Hernandez I. San- Arment Caot JM Javaloyes IM. gion delay time cor. Felons fora desl fuel wich appliation to engine combustion mosline, tnt} Engine Hes 2010:11:195- 205 [36] Rumier-Laoeheos HP Fist M, Canin LR, Morse G, Sul C,Dagat ‘Autoanion of surozate biodiesel oct (830) a ih pressures: experimental fied meeting kane study Commbust are 2012:138:90 1008,