Engine Performance and Exhaust Emission Characteristics of a Methanol-Fueled Automobile

Bernhardt, W; Lee, W.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-2334-1_11

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some have found UBF emissions with methanol to be higher (Harrington and Pilot, 1975; Ingamells and Lindquist, 1975;LoRusso and Tabaczynski, 1976) andothers lower (Bernhardt, 1975; Fleming and Chamberlain, 1975;Koenig et af., 1976) than those with gasoline. The literature contains much confusion about the effect of methanol on UBF emissions.…”

Section: Engine Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature contains much confusion about the effect of methanol on UBF emissions. Some have found UBF emissions with methanol to be higher (Harrington and Pilot, 1975; Ingamells and Lindquist, 1975;LoRusso and Tabaczynski, 1976) andothers lower (Bernhardt, 1975; Fleming and Chamberlain, 1975;Koenig et af., 1976) than those with gasoline. Hilden and Parks (1976) have demonstrated that at least a portion of these conflicts may be due to differences in the preparation of the air-fuel mixture.…”

Section: Why Higher Ubfemissions With Methanol?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, these engine studies have shown reduced NO, emissions when operating with methanol at the same equivalence ratio (4)* as with gasoline, and even further NO, reductions when the leaner operating ability of methanol is exploited (Hilden and Parks, 1976;Koenig et al, 1976;LoRusso and Tabaczynski, 1976; Most and Longwell, 1975). Vehicle studies of methanol fuelling (Adelman et al, 1972;Bernhardt, 1975;Ingamells and Lindquist 1975) are fewer in number and have not included adequate evaluation of either driveability, or the effect of varying spark timing and 4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Vehicle evaluation of neat methanol—compromises among exhaust emissions, fuel economy and driveability

Brinkman

1979

Int. J. Energy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methanol was evaluated as an alternative fuel in vehicles with spark‐ignited, internal‐combustion engines. Acceptable driveability was achieved with a methanol‐fuelled car equipped with electronic fuel injection (EFI) which was modified to provide proper air‐fuel ratios for methanol. the target level for driveability was not achieved with a methanol‐fuelled carburetted car modified to provide proper air‐fuel ratios for and increased vaporization of methanol. With the EFI car, using the average equivalence ratio (Φa = 0·96) and spark timing designed for the production gasoline car, exhaust emissions and fuel economy with methanol fuelling were compared to those with gasoline. With methanol, compared with gasoline, 60 per cent lower NOx, 3·5 times higher unburned fuel emissions (UBF), and similar CO engine emissions were measured. the air pollution significance of the higher UBF emissions from methanol combustion is unknown because the UBF species (mainly methanol) are different from those from gasoline combustion. A catalytic converter decreased emissions of UBF and CO similarly for both fuels. Fuel economy with methanol—about half that of gasoline on a volume basis—was 7–10 per cent better on an energy basis than that with gasoline. With methanol fuelling, spark timing and Φa were varied from production values to obtain a more acceptable compromise among driveability, exhaust emissions and fuel economy. While fuelling with methanol at Φa = 0·96, using best power rather than production spark timing increased fuel economy 3 to 6 per cent without significantly affecting emissions and driveability. As Φa was leaned to 0·62 while maintaining best‐power spark timing engine and tailpipe (after converter) CO emissions decreased, engine UBF emissions increased, NOx and tailpipe UBF emissions were not greatly affected, and driveability deteriorated. With best‐power spark timing and the Φa for maximum economy (0·83), driveability was acceptable, and CO and NOx emissions met the 1977 standards. At Φa = 0·83, NOx emissions were reduced below the statutory standard (0·4 g/mile) by retarding spark timing; however, driveability and fuel economy deteriorated. Although the feasibility and benefits of operating vehicles with neat methanol have been demonstrated, not all problems of methanol fuelling (for example, cold start) were addressed. In addition, other alternatives such as obtaining hydrocarbon liquids from coal or using methanol as fuel for stationary powerplants must also be considered to obtain the most efficient utilization of energy resources.

show abstract

Section: Engine Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why Higher Ubfemissions With Methanol?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vehicle evaluation of neat methanol—compromises among exhaust emissions, fuel economy and driveability

Brinkman

1979

Int. J. Energy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Low-molecular-weight alcohols (methanol, ethanol, and others) and esters -methyl tertiary butyl, methyl tertiary amyl, ethyl tertiary butyl, diisopropyl, and other esther -are utilized as oxygenated fuels. They can be used for heat engines of various types (gasoline, diesel, gas-turbine, and rocket) in pure form and blended with a hydrocarbon fuel alike as demonstrated by numerous publications [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].Alcohols significantly differ from traditional fuels in thermophysical properties. The surface tension and viscosity of alcohols, which exert an influence on the conditions of formation of a blend and on the quality of atomization, are lower than those of a diesel fuel and are close to the values for gasoline.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of ethanol on the operating parameters of an internal-combustion engine

Assad

Kucharchuk

Penyazkov

et al. 2011

J Eng Phys Thermophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distinctive features of the operation of an internal-combustion engine burning ethanol-containing fuels have been studied. It has been shown that the enrichment of gasoline with ethanol tends to diminish the concentrations of CO and NO in combustion products, with the engine's fuel efficiency being inevitably degraded due to the lower volumetric heat of combustion of the blend. The experimentally confirmed technique of blocking the growth in the concentration of NO in the combustion products of hydrogen-containing fuels by enrichment of the blend with ethanol has been proposed; the optimum parameters of the three-fuel composition have been established.Utilization of oxygenated fuels is the real possibility of extending the energy base of engines within the framework of the current technological availability. At the same time, these fuels enable one to somewhat reduce environmental contamination by combustion products. Low-molecular-weight alcohols (methanol, ethanol, and others) and esters -methyl tertiary butyl, methyl tertiary amyl, ethyl tertiary butyl, diisopropyl, and other esther -are utilized as oxygenated fuels. They can be used for heat engines of various types (gasoline, diesel, gas-turbine, and rocket) in pure form and blended with a hydrocarbon fuel alike as demonstrated by numerous publications [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].Alcohols significantly differ from traditional fuels in thermophysical properties. The surface tension and viscosity of alcohols, which exert an influence on the conditions of formation of a blend and on the quality of atomization, are lower than those of a diesel fuel and are close to the values for gasoline. The volumetric and gravimetric energy capacity of alcohols is approximately 45-60% lower compared to hydrocarbon fuels. At the same time, the calorific powers of fuel-air mixtures differ little, being 2.623 and 2.615 MJ ⁄ kg respectively for methanol and ethanol compared to 2.677 MJ ⁄ kg for gasoline. Furthermore, aliphatic alcohols are distinguished by the low content of carbon and the high content of oxygen, which is particularly characteristic of methanol. This is responsible for the lower heat of combustion of a unit mass of the fuel and simultaneously for its complete combustion with a lower air consumption: 6.52 and 9 for methanol and ethanol respectively, which is approximately half as high as for hydrocarbon fuels. The higher-than-average content of oxygen in an alcohol prevents the occurrence of conditions for cracking and contributes to a significant reduction in the content of soot and solids in combustion products.Despite the possibility of utilizing methanol and ethanol in forced ignition engines and compression ignition engines alike, ethanol is more suitable as a motor fuel, which is due to its higher heat of combustion (which is 35% higher than in methanol), better solubility in gasoline, lower corrosion aggression to metals and commercial-rubber products, much lower toxicity, and higher antidetonation properties.In this work, we have performed a cycle ...

show abstract

Hydrogen as an Alternative Automotive Fuel

Kukkonen¹

1981

SAE Technical Paper Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Engine Performance and Exhaust Emission Characteristics of a Methanol-Fueled Automobile

Cited by 4 publications

References 2 publications

Vehicle evaluation of neat methanol—compromises among exhaust emissions, fuel economy and driveability

Vehicle evaluation of neat methanol—compromises among exhaust emissions, fuel economy and driveability

Influence of ethanol on the operating parameters of an internal-combustion engine

Hydrogen as an Alternative Automotive Fuel

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About