Downloads

Mahmoud, M., Abdellatief, T. M. M., Aydin, R., & Abdelkareem, M. A. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Selecting Renewable and Sustainable Gasoline Biofuel Additives Based on an Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Model. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Technology. 2025. doi: Retrieved from https://w3.sciltp.com/journals/rset/article/view/724
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2025
Copyright (c) 2025 by the authors.
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Article

Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Selecting Renewable and Sustainable Gasoline Biofuel Additives Based on an Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Model

Montaser Mahmoud 1, Tamer M. M. Abdellatief 1,2, Ridvan Aydin 3 and Mohammad Ali Abdelkareem 1,2,*

1 Sustainable Energy & Power Systems Research Centre, RISE, University of Sharjah, Sharjah P.O. Box 27272, United Arab Emirates

2 Chemical Engineering Department, Minia University, Elminia 61519, Egypt

3 Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, College of Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah P.O. Box 27272, United Arab Emirates

* Correspondence: mabdulkareem@sharjah.ac.ae

Received: 28 January 2025; Revised: 7 March 2025; Accepted: 8 April 2025; Published: 22 April 2025

Abstract: The production of biofuel from locally available biomass resources is a crucial step toward achieving a sustainable energy production system. As a result, it is crucial to select a suitable biomass resource by considering its availability and combining several other factors simultaneously. Since conventional single-criteria decision-making techniques can no longer handle such complexity, multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is recommended. The current paper aims to apply MCDM to select renewable and sustainable gasoline biofuel additives to produce high-octane gasoline with high gasoline engine performance and low exhaust emissions based on an integrated AHP-TOPSIS model. The compared gasoline biofuel alternatives are isopropanol, ethanol, methanol, isobutanol, di-isobutylene, n-butanol, and (Di isopropyl ether) DIPE. Ten technical criteria that address various elements such as research octane number, motor octane number, density, Reid vapor pressure, boiling point temperature, auto-ignition temperature, heat of evaporation at 25 °C, Flashpoint, stoichiometric air-fuel ratio (AFR), and laminar flame speed are used in MCDM. The overall MCDM results revealed that isopropanol and ethanol achieved the highest rankings, which is consistent with the advantages and technical characteristics of the gasoline biofuel additives. The ranking of gasoline additives places isopropanol at the top with a score of 0.6576, primarily due to its anti-knock properties, which contribute to the formation of gasoline with high octane, which is environmentally in fuel blending. This was closely followed by ethanol and isobutanol, with scores of 0.6301 and 0.626, respectively. 

Keywords:

multi-criteria decision-making gasoline biofuel Analytical Hierarchy Process gasoline additives TOPSIS

References

  1. Shrivastav, G.; Khan, T.S.; Agarwal, M.; et al. Reformulation of Gasoline to Replace Aromatics by Biomass-Derived Alkyl Levulinates. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 7118–7127. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b01316.
  2. Li, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wu, G.; et al. Experimental evaluation of water-containing isopropanol-n-butanol-ethanol and gasoline blend as a fuel candidate in spark-ignition engine. Appl. Energy 2018, 29, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.051.
  3. Kale, A.V.; Krishnasamy, A. Experimental study of homogeneous charge compression ignition combustion in a light-duty diesel engine fueled with isopropanol–gasoline blends. Energy 2023, 264, 126152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.126152.
  4. Sathyanarayanan, S.; Suresh, S.; Saravanan, C.G.; et al. Experimental investigation and performance prediction of gasoline engine operating parameters fueled with diisopropyl ether-gasoline blends: Response surface methodology based optimization. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 375, 133941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133941.
  5. Dhamodaran, G.; Esakkimuthu, G.S.; Pochareddy, Y.K. Experimental study on performance, combustion, and emission behaviour of diisopropyl ether blends in MPFI SI engine. Fuel 2016, 173, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.01.014.
  6. Lü, X.; Hou, Y.; Ji, L.; et al. Heat Release Analysis on Combustion and Parametric Study on Emissions of HCCI Engines Fueled with 2-Propanol/n-Heptane Blend Fuels. Energy Fuels 2006, 20, 1870–1878. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef0601263.
  7. Saisirirat, P.; Foucher, F.; Chanchaona, S.; et al. Spectroscopic Measurements of Low-Temperature Heat Release for Homogeneous Combustion Compression Ignition (HCCI) n-Heptane/Alcohol Mixture Combustion. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 5404–5409. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef100938u.
  8. Zhang, Y.; Boehman, A.L. Oxidation of 1-butanol and a mixture of n-heptane/1-butanol in a motored engine. Combust. Flame 2010, 157, 1816–1824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2010.04.017.
  9. Kalaskar, V.; Kang, D.; Boehman, A.L. Impact of Fuel Composition and Intake Pressure on Lean Autoignition of Surrogate Gasoline Fuels in a CFR Engine. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 11315–11327. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b01157.
  10. Sarıkoç, S. Environmental and enviro-economic effect analysis of hydrogen-methanol-gasoline addition into an SI engine. Fuel 2023, 344, 128124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2023.128124.
  11. Gaspar, D.J.; West, B.H.; Ruddy, D.; et al. Top Ten Blendstocks for Turbocharged Gasoline Engines: Bioblendstocks with Potential to Deliver the for Highest Engine Efficiency; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL): Richland, WA, USA, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2172/1567705.
  12. Baudry, G.; Macharis, C.; Vallée, T. Can microalgae biodiesel contribute to achieve the sustainability objectives in the transport sector in France by 2030? A comparison between first, second and third generation biofuels though a range-based Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis. Energy 2018, 155, 1032–1046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.038.
  13. Haase, M.; Babenhauserheide, N.; Rösch, C. Multi criteria decision analysis for sustainability assessment of 2nd generation biofuels. Procedia CIRP 2020, 90, 226–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.02.124.
  14. Akhtari, S.; Malladi, K.T.; Sowlati, T.; et al. Incorporating risk in multi-criteria decision making: The case study of biofuel production from construction and demolition wood waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 167, 105233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105233.
  15. Firouzi, S.; Allahyari, M.S.; Isazadeh, M.; et al. Hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach to select appropriate biomass resources for biofuel production. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 770, 144449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144449.
  16. Al-Ali, S.; Olabi, A.G.; Mahmoud, M. Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Selecting the Location of a Solar Photovoltaic Park: A Case Study in UAE. Energies 2024, 17, 4235. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174235.
  17. Saaty, T.L. The Analytical Hierarchical Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
  18. Taherdoost, H. Decision making using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP); A step by step approach. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Syst. 2017, 2, 244–246.
  19. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Ameyaw, E.E.; et al. Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 19, 436–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1452098.
  20. Franek, J.; Kresta, A. Judgment Scales and Consistency Measure in AHP. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 12, 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00332-3.
  21. Menon, R.R.; Ravi, V. Using AHP-TOPSIS methodologies in the selection of sustainable suppliers in an electronics supply chain. Clean. Mater. 2022, 5, 100130.
  22. Hanine, M.; Boutkhoum, O.; Tikniouine, A.; et al. Application of an integrated multi-criteria decision making AHP-TOPSIS methodology for ETL software selection. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 263.
  23. Guo, Z.; Yu, X.; Du, Y.; et al. Comparative study on combustion and emissions of SI engine with gasoline port injection plus acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE), isopropanol-butanol-ethanol (IBE) or butanol direct injection. Fuel 2022, 316, 123363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123363.
  24. Awad, O.I.; Zhou, B.; Chen, Z.; et al. Influence of PODE1 additive into ethanol-gasoline blends (E10) on fuel properties and phase stability. Heliyon 2023, 9, e22364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22364.
  25. Qi, D.H.; Lee, C.F. Combustion and emissions behaviour for ethanol–gasoline-blended fuels in a multipoint electronic fuel injection engine. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2016, 35, 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2014.895004.
  26. Mack, J.H.; Schuler, D.; Butt, R.H.; et al. Experimental investigation of butanol isomer combustion in Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) engines. Appl. Energy 2016, 165, 612–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.105.
  27. Cesur, I.; Uysal, F. Experimental investigation and artificial neural network-based modelling of thermal barrier engine performance and exhaust emissions for methanol-gasoline blends. Energy 2024, 291, 130393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.130393.
  28. Waluyo, B.; Setiyo, M.; Wardana, I.N.G. Fuel performance for stable homogeneous gasoline-methanol-ethanol blends. Fuel 2021, 294, 120565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.120565.
  29. Chaichan, M.T.; Abaas, K.I.; Mohammed, B.A. Experimental Study of the Effect of Fuel Type on the Emitted Emissions from SIE at Idle Period. Al-Khwarizmi Eng. J. 2018, 13, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.22153/kej.2017.11.001.
  30. Sinaga, N.; Mel, M.; Majanasastra, R.; et al. Enhancement of M15 Engine Performance by the Addition of Propylene Glycol. Int. J. Emerg. Trends Eng. Res. 2020, 8.
  31. Sani, M.S.M.; Mamat, R.; Khoerunnisa, F.; et al. Vibration analysis of the engine using biofuel blends: A review. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 225, 1010.
  32. Wojcieszyk, M.; Knuutila, L.; Kroyan, Y.; et al. Performance of Anisole and Isobutanol as Gasoline Bio-Blendstocks for Spark Ignition Engines. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168729.
  33. Fenkl, M.; Pechout, M.; Vojtisek, M. N-butanol and isobutanol as alternatives to gasoline: Comparison of port fuel injector characteristics. EPJ Web Conf. 2016, 114, 02021.
  34. Tao, L.; Tan, E.C.; McCormick, R.; et al. Techno-economic analysis and life-cycle assessment of cellulosic isobutanol and comparison with cellulosic ethanol and n-butanol. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2014, 8, 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1431.
  35. CAMEO Chemicals. Diisobutylene, Isomeric Compounds. Available online: https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/3225#:~:text=A%20clear%20colorless%20liquid%20with,Vapors%20heavier%20than%20air (accessed on 2 April 2024).
  36. Dhamodaran, G.; Esakkimuthu, G.S. Experimental measurement of physico-chemical properties of oxygenate (DIPE) blended gasoline. Measurement 2019, 134, 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.10.077.
  37. Dunjo, J.; Nguyen, D.; Murphy, M. Laminar Flame Speeds Data Collection. Ensuring Reliable Data for Explosions Characterization. Available online: https://iomosaic.com/docs/default-source/papers/laminar-flame-speeds-data-collection-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=e1f3cad4_6 (accessed on 20 December 2024).