Effect of Ethanol Blends on a Spark

Ignition, 4-Stroke, Internal Combustion

Engine

By
Shane Curtis, Mark Owen, Terrence Hess and Scott Egan
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah

December 5, 2008
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

Abstract

An increasing number of spark ignition, 4-stroke internal combustion engines use ethanol blends
in the United States. Environmental concerns as well as the need for renewable energy sources
have driven the government to encourage the use of ethanol blends. The reality is that the
majority of the engines that use low percentage ethanol blends are designed to run on gasoline.
The objective of this research was to determine the effect of ethanol blending on the performance
and emissions of internal combustion engines that are calibrated to run on 100% gasoline.
Experimental tests were performed on an engine using pure gasoline, 10% ethanol and 20%
ethanol blends. The results of the study show that 10% ethanol blends can be used in internal
combustion engines without any negative drawbacks. The fuel conversion efficiency remains
the same, while CO emissions are greatly reduced. 20% ethanol blends decrease the fuel
conversion efficiency and brake power of an engine, but still reduces CO emissions.

1. Introduction
In the past few years, many have looked to alternative fuels to help solve the problems of rising
levels of pollution and fuel costs. Ethanol has been explored as a potential fuel since the creation
of the internal combustion engine. At the end of the 19th century, Henry Ford designed a car that
would run completely off of ethanol [1, 2, 3]. Despite this promising start, gasoline later gained
prominence as the fuel of choice for spark ignition engines. Nonetheless, as shown in Figure 1,
ethanol production has skyrocketed over the past 20 years.

Figure 1 – Ethanol Production Chart

Source: http://www.data360.org

1
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

The government has played a large role in the increase of ethanol production. The Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990 forced gasoline producers to change the actual make-up of gasoline in order
to conform to pollution regulations [4]. By 1996, the government banned the use of tetraethyl
lead as an octane booster for gasoline; thus, fuel producers have turned to oxygenates to enhance
gasoline’s octane number [4]. More recently, carbon dioxide emissions have drawn the attention
of congress. Over 3 billion dollars in taxes, subsidies, and tax credits have encouraged producers
and consumers alike to use ethanol in internal combustion engines in the past 10 years [5]. With
such large sums of money being spent, the viability of ethanol as an alternative fuel for spark
ignition, internal combustion engines becomes very important.

1.1 Objective

The present study determines the effect of ethanol-gasoline blends on the performance,
efficiency, and emissions of a four-stroke spark ignition engine. More specifically, this research
deals with the effect of ethanol blending on engines that are calibrated to operate on 100%
gasoline, much like the average passenger car.

1.2 Theory

1.2.1 Properties of Fuels that Affect Engine Performance

The fuel used in an internal combustion engine greatly affects both engine efficiency and
power. If an engine is more efficient, then it will produce more power, but the reverse is
not necessarily true. There are many different characteristics of a fuel that determine
how well the fuel will perform in an internal combustion engine. These qualities need to
be considered in parallel in order to truly understand the net effect of a fuel’s usage in an
engine.

The heating value (qc) is defined as the heat transferred out of a system during
combustion when the initial and final states of the products and reactants are at the same
temperature [6]. In other words, the heating value indicates how much energy is
contained in a fuel. Increasing the heating value of a fuel will increase the power output
of an engine [7].

The octane number of a fuel is a measure of the tendency of the air-fuel mixture to resist
self-ignition. This pre-ignition, or knock, decreases engine efficiency and increases
engine wear [8]. If a fuel has a higher octane number, then it can endure a higher
compression ratio before exploding. Although the octane number by itself does not
imply better engine performance, engines with higher compression ratios are more
powerful and efficient, and they need to run on fuels with high octane numbers [8].

The laminar flame speed represents the speed at which a one-dimensional laminar flame
propagates into the unburned gas under adiabatic conditions [6]. This fuel property
determines how fast the mass of fuel will be burned in the cylinder. A high flame speed

2
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

reduces the time required for complete combustion, which produces lower exhaust
temperatures, higher engine efficiency, and lower tendency to knock [8].

The heat of vaporization of a fuel indicates how much heat is required to cause the fuel to
change phases from a liquid to a gas. During the intake stroke, the fuel evaporates to
make an air-fuel mixture. Fuels with high heat of vaporization remove more energy, or
heat, from the surrounding air while evaporating, effectively lowering the temperature of
the resulting air-fuel mixture. This allows more air and fuel to enter the cylinder, and
increases volumetric efficiency and power output [9, 10].

1.2.2 Ethanol

Ethanol (C2H5OH) is a high performance, biomass fuel. It is considered the most suited
alcohol to be used as a fuel for spark ignition engines. The most attractive properties of
ethanol include its ability to be produced from renewable energy sources, its high octane
number, and its high laminar flame speed [9]. Drawbacks include its relatively low
heating value and the fact that it is corrosive to metal and rubber parts of the engine [11].

Recently, ethanol has received attention as a potential transportation fuel of the future.
The present cost of ethanol is high due to the manufacturing and processing required.
Some studies show that the production and distribution of ethanol, as shown in Figure 2,
actually consumes more energy than what is present in the final product. This would
defeat a major reason of using an alternate fuel [7]. Also, high production of ethanol
would create a food-fuel competition, resulting in higher costs for both [7]. Thus, the use
of 100% ethanol in internal combustion engines on a wide scale is not plausible at the
present time. However, ethanol blends with gasoline are commonly used in the United
States.

Figure 2 – Ethanol Production/Consumption Cycle

Source: http://www.afdc.energy.gov

1.2.3 Ethanol Blends vs. Gasoline

The performance of ethanol blends has come into question as representatives of the
automotive and oil industries have stated that ethanol blends are less efficient than
gasoline. These representatives have based their comments on the fact that ethanol has a
lower heating value than gasoline, as shown in Table 1. On the other hand, the ethanol
industry has insisted that other properties offset the lower energy content in ethanol [12].
3
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

Many of these properties are also shown in table 1. The higher heat of vaporization of
ethanol indicates that the volumetric efficiency of ethanol blends is higher than that of
pure gasoline, improving power output [10]. The addition of ethanol to gasoline results
in the increase of the research octane number by 5 units for each ethanol addition [13].
This allows ethanol blends to operate in engines with higher compression ratios than
gasoline. The higher laminar flame speed of ethanol makes ethanol blends combust
quicker than gasoline, improving efficiency and power [9]. Thus, in many respects,
ethanol blends improve the combustion process and are superior to gasoline.

Table 1 – Properties of Gasoline and Ethanol

Sources: [2, 9]
Property Fuels
Gasoline Ethanol
Molecular Formula C7H17 C2H5OH
Molecular Weight (kg/kmol) 100-110 46
Octane Number 91-96 106-110
Lower Heating Value (MJ/kg) 44 26.9
Stoichiometric Fuel/Air Ratio 0.0685 0.1111
Density (g/cm^3) 0.72-0.78 0.785
Heat of Vaporization (KJ/kg) 305 840

Several studies have shown that blending unleaded gasoline with ethanol increases the
brake power, fuel conversion efficiency, and decreases brake specific fuel consumption
[2, 8, 9, 13]. Other studies have reported slight decreases in fuel economy [12]. As
stated in section 1.1, the objective of the current study is to determine the effect of
ethanol blending on the performance of an engine that is calibrated to run on 100%
gasoline.

1.3 Emissions

An important engineering aspect of the internal combustion engine involves decreasing the
amount of undesirable emissions created by the combustion process. Exhaust emissions are
dependent on fuel composition, air/fuel equivalence ratio, operating conditions, oxygen content,
and the chemical structure of additives [4]. These emissions pollute the environment and
contribute to global warming, acid rain, smog, odors, and other respiratory and health problems
[7]. Emission control technology, such as the catalytic converter, has made significant
improvements in decreasing emissions. Nonetheless, the increasing number of vehicles and the
distances traveled by these vehicles eliminate a considerable part of these benefits [1]. Thus, motor
vehicle emissions continue to present a concern from a human health perspective.

1.3.1 Nitrogen Oxides

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are mainly created from nitrogen in the air during the combustion
process. Nitrogen oxides react in the atmosphere to form ozone and are one of the major
4
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

causes of photochemical smog. Ground-level ozone harms the lungs and other biological
tissues [7]. Some studies have shown that ethanol blends (up to 30% by volume), when
used as a fuel in spark ignition engines, reduce NOx emissions [8]. Other studies have
shown that NOx emissions from E10 and gasoline are about the same [1].

1.3.2 Carbon Monoxide

Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas created when an engine is
operated with a fuel-rich equivalence ratio. Not only is CO an undesirable emission, but
it also represents lost chemical energy that was not fully utilized in the engine [7]. CO
forms when there is not enough oxygen to convert all the carbon in a fuel to CO2 [7].
Therefore, the key to minimizing CO emissions is to reduce the time that the engine
needs to run rich, such as start-up, because this is when there is less oxygen available in
the cylinder [6]. Ethanol blends, which contain oxygen in its chemical make-up, also
decrease CO emissions in comparison with pure gasoline [1, 13].

1.3.3 Carbon Dioxide

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emitted from combustion engine fuels does not directly threaten
human health, but it does contribute to global climate changes [1]. Although CO2
emissions from gasoline and ethanol blends are nearly equivalent, CO2 emissions from
ethanol can be recaptured by the very plants that are grown to create ethanol [4]. While it
is not known if this renewable ethanol cycle would completely nullify the CO2 emissions
from ethanol, it is clear that at least part of the CO2 emissions would be avoided.

5
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

2. Methods
2.1 Experimental Equipment & Materials

The following methods were used to determine the effect of ethanol-gasoline blends on the
performance, efficiency, and emissions of a four-stroke spark ignition engine.

2.1.1 Test Engine Apparatus

The engine used to perform the experiment is located on the campus of Brigham Young
University. Table 2 summarizes the important technical details about the engine. All
tests were performed on this engine. The engine connects to a water brake dynamometer,
which provides an external load and absorbs the engine power.

Table 2 – Engine Parameters

Neon SOHC Test Engine
Cycle 4 Stroke
Ignition Spark
Bore 87.5 mm
Stroke 83 mm
Compression Ratio 9.8:1
Volume Displaced 2.0 L
Number of Cylinders 4
Number of Valves 16
Cylinder Firing Order 1,3,4,2

2.1.2 Measuring Equipment

We metered fuel flow rate by using a rotating turbine flow meter and converting the
measurement into a mass flow rate with a calibration equation. We measured the air flow
in a similar manner. The dynamometer force was measured using a scale. We measured
Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen emissions using a
Horiba PG-250 portable gas analyzer.

2.1.3 Experimental Fuels

We used the following fuels in the experiment:

• Gasoline (88 octane) purchased at a Sinclair gas station in Provo, UT

• 100% Ethanol (Denatured Ethyl Alcohol – Class 1B)

2.2 Experimental Procedure

6
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

2.2.1 Data Acquisition

We performed the experiment for pure gasoline, a 10% ethanol-gasoline blend, and a
20% ethanol-gasoline blend. Table 3 summarizes the different settings for each of the 9
different tests performed. In all settings, the following procedure was followed.

Step 1 – We created the mixtures by weighing the appropriate amount of ethanol on a

scale, and then added it to the gasoline (applied for the ethanol blends only).
Step 2 – We emptied the engine fuel tank and filled it with the fuel to be tested.
Step 3 – We started the engine and let it run at the required fuel flow and engine speed
for about 3 minutes in order to allow the engine to stabilize.
Step 4 – We recorded 10 measurements of the fuel flow, engine speed, air flow,
dynamometer force, vacuum pressure, and the level of concentration for NOx, CO, CO2
and O2.

Table 3 – Test Matrix

Fuel Flow Reading
Fuel Engine Speed (RPM)
(Counts/10 Seconds)
Gasoline 100 2500
Gasoline 200 2500
Gasoline 300 2500
10% Ethanol 100 2500
10% Ethanol 200 2500
10% Ethanol 300 2500
20% Ethanol 100 2500
20% Ethanol 200 2500
20% Ethanol 300 2500

2.2.2 Data Processing and Analysis

After all of the data was compiled, the air to fuel ratio was determined using the air flow
reading and the fuel flow reading. The brake power, brake specific fuel consumption,
and fuel conversion efficiency were determined using the fuel flow reading, the engine
speed, and the dynamometer force. We then used Microsoft Excel to graph the data and
compare the results for the 3 different test fuels.

3. Results

3.1 Fuel Performance

The variability in the data for the performance parameters was relatively low. To show this,
error bars of the uncertainty have been displayed in each of the three charts for fuel performance
shown below. The uncertainty for Brake Work is small. More important is the uncertainty in the
7
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

fuel conversion efficiency, where it seems the uncertainty could cause the results to be different
from the averages. For more specific details about the values of the uncertainty, see Appendix A.
3.1.1 Brake Work

Figure 3 – Brake Work Results

Brake work was found to be relatively equal for all three fuels at the 2 lower fuel flow
rates as shown in Figure 3. At the highest fuel flow rate, the gasoline has the highest
brake work, followed by the 10% ethanol blend and 20% ethanol blend. This is a direct
result of the heating value of the ethanol blends and gasoline. Gasoline has the highest
heating value; therefore, gasoline produced the greatest brake work at the widest throttle
setting. However, it is difficult to generalize the findings for all 3 fuels, because the
lower throttle settings did produce the same results. It is important to note that the 20%
ethanol blend produced less work than gasoline at all 3 throttle settings.

3.1.2 Brake Specific Fuel Consumption

Figure 4 – Brake Specific Fuel Consumption Results

8
Note: Error bars are very small and may not be visible
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

The results for the brake specific fuel consumption of gasoline, 10% ethanol blend, and
20% ethanol blend are shown in Figure 4. The bsfc for 20% ethanol blend was always
higher than regular gasoline, especially at low throttle. This is another result of the lower
heating value of the two fuels. In layman’s terms, a gallon of 20% blend in a passenger
car would not go as far as a gallon of regular gasoline. On the other hand, the bsfc for
10% blend was lower at low throttle, the same at middle throttle, and higher at high
throttle. Also, it can be seen from the error bars that the bsfc at fuel flows of 200 and 300
counts are nearly identical. Thus no conclusion can be made from the data collected as to
a noticeable difference between each fuel at higher throttles.

3.1.3 Fuel Conversion Efficiency

Figure 5 – Fuel Conversion Efficiency

Figure 5 displays the results for fuel conversion efficiency. The gasoline and 10%
ethanol blend are nearly identical in terms of efficiency. This proves that other fuel
properties such as the laminar flame speed and heat of vaporization can counteract the
energy content in a fuel, as indicated by the heating value, to produce the same fuel
conversion efficiency. At the same time, the 20% ethanol blend produced efficiency
about 2.5% less than gasoline and 10% ethanol blend at high throttle. In addition, as the
throttle is opened wider, fuel conversion efficiency of 20% ethanol increases, but not as
much as the other fuels do. The average passenger car engine would need the fuel/air
system to be modified to improve the efficiency of a 20% ethanol blend, especially to
compensate as the throttle is being opened wider.

3.2 Fuel Emissions

The variability in the data for the fuel emissions was relatively high. This is probably because the
emission readings seemed to be constantly changing. These readings were most likely fluctuating
because the engine was not at a stable position. Often, unless at the perfect settings, which did
9
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

not coincide with flow rates, the engine would rev and then slow down and keep doing this. This
likely accounts for the large variation, and thus large uncertainty, in the emissions data. The
actual values for uncertainty can be seen in Appendix B.

3.2.1 Nitrogen Oxides

The results for the NOx emissions are displayed in Figure 6. There are very few solid
trends present in the data. The NOx emissions for 20% ethanol on average are smaller
than those of pure gasoline. 10% ethanol blend produced the highest NOx emissions at
the lower two fuel flow rates. The only responsible conclusion to be made based on the
data is that NOx emissions are of a similar order for all 3 fuels, meaning that all the
emissions were less than 50 ppm.

Figure 6 – Results for NOx Emissions

3.2.2 Carbon Monoxide

CO Emissions
1600.0
1400.0
1200.0
CO (ppm)

1000.0
800.0 Gasoline

600.0 E10
400.0 E20
200.0
0.0
100 200 300
Fuel Flow (Counts/10 Seconds)

Figure 7 – Results for CO Emissions

10
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

Figure 7 displays the Carbon Monoxide emissions for all 3 fuels. Although there is a
large amount of variability in the data (see Appendix B), it is safe to say that the gasoline
emitted a lot more Carbon Monoxide than either of the ethanol blends. This is due to the
fact that CO is formed when there is not enough oxygen for all of the carbon content of
fuel to convert to Carbon Dioxide. Ethanol is an oxygenate; therefore, ethanol blends
will have more oxygen in their chemical structure than pure gasoline, decreasing the
chance that the carbon from the fuel will not be able to form CO2 during combustion.

3.2.3 Carbon Dioxide

CO_2 Emissions
15.1
15.0
14.9
CO_2 %

14.8
14.7 Gasoline
14.6 E10
14.5 E20
14.4
14.3
100 200 300
Fuel Flow (Counts/10 Seconds)

Figure 8 – Results for CO2 Emissions

The uncertainty for the CO2 emissions was very low in this study. Figure 8 displays the
results for the CO2 emissions. It is clear the highest emissions were produced while
operating on 20% ethanol blend. The 10% ethanol blend produced the lowest emissions.
All of the results are within 0.5% of each other. It is important to remember that
although the Carbon Dioxide emissions were highest for the 20% ethanol blend, a high
percentage of the CO2 emitted by the ethanol blends will be recaptured as more ethanol is
produced.

3.3 Discussion

The methods used to obtain these results have a few weaknesses. The same gas tank was used to
feed the engine for every test; thus, some residual test fuel may have remained in the tank,
diluting the next test fuel. The engine ran smoothly at certain fuel flow rates and engine speeds,
while at others the engine speed fluctuated. These bursts in speed may have influenced the
results. At the same time, the results agree with current theory, and therefore they are valid
findings. Therefore, 10% ethanol blends can be more widely used in the United States without
any major emissions or engine performance repercussions.

11
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

Further research still needs to be done to determine how ethanol blends perform in diesel internal
combustion engines that are not modified. Higher percentage ethanol blends also need to be
tested in spark ignition engines. Finally, the true production costs of ethanol need to be
established.

4. Conclusions

1. 10% ethanol-gasoline blends can be used in spark ignition engines without any major
modifications to the air/fuel system. The 10% ethanol blend produces similar fuel
conversion efficiency, brake work, and bsfc to that of pure gasoline. CO emissions for
10% ethanol blends are much lower than CO emissions from gasoline. NOx and CO2
emissions for 10% ethanol blends and gasoline are similar.
2. 20% ethanol-gasoline blends do not perform as well as pure gasoline does in spark
ignition engines that are calibrated to run on gasoline. The fuel conversion efficiency and
brake work both decrease for an engine operating on a 20% ethanol blend, while bsfc
increases. CO emissions for 20% ethanol blends are much lower than CO emissions
from gasoline. The NOx emissions for 20% ethanol are similar to those of pure gasoline.
CO2 emissions are higher for 20% ethanol blend than for what is produced by gasoline.

12
 Effect of Ethanol Blends on Internal Combustion Engines

5. References
[1] Karman, D., 2003, “Ethanol Fuelled Motor Vehicle Emissions: A Literature Review,” Health
Canada, Carleton University.
[2] Al-Hasan, M., 2003, “Effect of Ethanol-Unleaded Gasoline Blends on Engine Performance
and Exhaust Emission,” Energy Conversion and Management, 44, pp. 1547-1561.
[3] Anonymous, 2008, “Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center,” U.S.
Department of Energy, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc.html.
[4] He, B., Wang, J., Hao, J., Yan, X., and Xiao, J., 2003, “A Study on Emission Characteristics
of an EFI Engine with Ethanol Blended Gasoline Fuels,” Atmospheric Environment, 37, pp. 949-
957.
[5] Bettelheim, A., 2006, “Biofuels Boom,” CQ Researcher, 16(34), pp. 793-816.
[6] Ferguson, C. R. and Kirkpatrick, A. T., 2001, Internal Combustion Engines – Applied
Thermosciences, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 1-28, 328.
[7] Pulkrabek, W. W., 1997, Engineering Fundamentals of the Internal Combustion Engine,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, p. 154.
[8] Baghdadi-Al, M., 2008, “Measurement and Prediction Study of the Effect of Ethanol
Blending on the Performance and Pollutants Emission of a Four-Stroke Spark Ignition Engine,”
IMechE, 222(D), pp. 859-873.
[9] Bayraktar, H., 2005, “Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Using Gasoline-Ethanol
Blends in Spark-Ignition Engines,” Renewable Energy, 30, pp. 1733-1747.
[10] Lynd, L. R., 1996, “Overview and Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol From Cellulosic Biomass:
Technology, Economics, the Environment, and Policy,” Annual Energy Review, 21, pp. 403-406.
[11] Davis, G. J., 1991, Gas Savers Reference, Whitehorse, Boise, pp. 95-96.
[12] Anonymous, 2008, “Fuel Economy Study,” American Coalition for Ethanol, pp. 1-9.
[13] Abdel-Rahman, A., A. and Osman, M. M., 1997, “Experimental Investigation on Varying
the Compression Ratio of SI Engine Working Under Different Ethanol-Gasoline Fuel Blends,”
International Journal of Energy Research, 21, pp. 31-40.

13