effect of compression ratio on energy and …jestec.taylors.edu.my/vol 9 issue 5 october 14/volume...

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 9, No. 5 (2014) 620 - 640 © School of Engineering, Taylor’s University

620

EFFECT OF COMPRESSION RATIO ON ENERGY AND EMISSION OF VCR DIESEL ENGINE FUELLED WITH DUAL

BLENDS OF BIODIESEL

R. D. EKNATH*, J. S. RAMCHANDRA

Department of Mechanical Engineering, S. J. J. T. University, Chudela, Rajasthan, India

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract

Abstract: In recent 10 years biodiesel fuel was studied extensively as an

alternative fuel. Most of researchers reported performance and emission of

biodiesel and their blends with constant compression ratio. Also all the research

was conducted with use of single biodiesel and its blend. Few reports are observed with the use of variable compression ratio and blends of more than

one biodiesel. Main aim of the present study is to analyse the effect of

compression ratio on the performance and emission of dual blends of biodiesel.

In the present study Blends of Jatropha and Karanja with Diesel fuel was tested

on single cylinder VCR DI diesel engine for compression ratio 16 and 18. High

density of biodiesel fuel causes longer delay period for Jatropha fuel was observed compare with Karanja fuel. However blending of two biodiesel

K20J40D results in to low mean gas temperature which is the main reason for

low NOx emission.

Keywords: Biodiesel, Diesel engine, Compression ratio, Energy, Emission.

1. Introduction

Biodiesel fuels are derived from vegetable oils, animal fats and used waste

cooking oil. It can be used in its neat form or can be blend with petroleum base

fuel diesel. Biodiesel is renewable, environment friendly and can be available as a

crop in most of rural area [1-5]. Vegetable oils are produced from the plants and

hence their burning gases do not have any sulphur content [6]. Many researchers

were reported that engine power is decreased [7-15] due to the fact that blending

of biodiesel reduces the heating value compared with petroleum base diesel.

Some of authors found that addition of biodiesel increase the power output. It

reaches to its maximum value and then decreases [16-21].

Effect of Compression Ratio on Energy and Emission of VCR Diesel Engine . . . . 621

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

Nomenclatures

BDC Bottom dead centre

BMEP Brake mean effective pressure, bar

BSFC Brake specific fuel consumption, kg.kW-1

.hr-1

BTDC Before top dead centre

BTE Brake thermal efficiency

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CR Compression ratio

CV Heating value of fuel, kJ.kg-1

D Diesel fuel

HC Hydro carbon

J Jatropha fuel

K Karanja fuel

K20J40D Blend with 20% Karanja, 40% Jatropha and 20% diesel (v/v)

K20J60D Blend with 20% Karanja, 60% Jatropha and 20% diesel (v/v)

KJD20 Blend with 20% Karanja, 20% Jatropha and 60% diesel (v/v)

KJD40 Blend with 40% Karanja, 40% Jatropha and 20% diesel (v/v)

MGT Mean gas temperature

P Cylinder pressure

PM Particulate matter

SFC Specific fuel consumption, kg.kW-1

.hr-1

TDC Top dead centre

VCR Variable compression ratio

Greek Symbols

ηBT Efficiency brake thermal

ηvol Efficiency volumetric

ηMECH Efficiency mechanical

θ Crank angle, deg.

ρ Density of a fuel, kg.m-3

Some literature explains that the power of the engine is recovered due to high

viscosity of biodiesel. High viscosity improves the air fuel ratio because of fuel

spray penetration during injection [22-23]. Most of researches [7, 9-12] reported

that fuel consumption of an engine is increased.

This is due to loss of heating value of biodiesel blends. Armas et al. [24]

reported that due to lower heating value of B100 biodiesel BSFC is increased by

12%. Also Hasimoglua et al. [25] reported higher BSFC for biodiesel. Godiganur

et al. [26] observed that with increasing content of biodiesel engine fuel

consumption increases. Raheman and Phadtare [15] reported same observations

for use of B100 Karanja biodiesel. Sahoo et al. [27] observed that for B100

Karanja biodiesel BSFC was increased by 13.31%.

PM emission reduced with the use of biodiesel. 40% PM was reduced

compare with biodiesel [16, 19, 25]. Sahoo et al. [27] observed that PM reduced

by 68.83% for B100 Karanja biodiesel and 64.28% for B100 Jatropha biodiesel.

Literatures reported that NOx emission increase with increase in content of

biodiesel. Lujan et al. [28] observed that NOx emission increases by 44.8 % for

622 R. D. Eknath and J. Ramchandra


B100 biodiesel. Sahoo et al. [27] reported comparison of Karanja and Jatropha

biodiesel. For Karanja biodiesel NOx emission increases with increase content

and for Jatropha biodiesel there is variation in NOx emission. Most of the

literatures reported that with the use of pure biodiesel CO emission reduces

compared with diesel fuel [7-9, 14, 15, 29-31]. Raheman and Phadtare [15]

observed that the CO emission was reduced by 74-94% for B100 Karanja

biodiesel. Sahoo et al. [27] reported that the CO emission was increased for

Jatropha biodiesel and reduced for Karanja biodiesel. Banapumatha et al. [32]

reported that the CO value for Jatropha biodiesel was 0.155% and for diesel fuel it

was 0.1125%. Many authors reported that HC emission decreases with increases

in content of biodiesel [26, 28, 31-36].

All these literatures findings are based on single fix compression ratio and use

of single biodiesel fuel. Compression ratio has a significant effect on combustion

and emission of the engine. Few literatures were observed with findings of varied

compression ratio and use of dual blends of biodiesel. Hence aim of this work is

to identify the performance and emission characteristics of single cylinder diesel

engine fuelled with blends of biodiesel (Jatropha and Karanja) with diesel fuel at

a compression ratio 16 and 18.

2. Materials and Method

Commercial diesel fuel was obtained locally was used as a base line fuel for this

study. Test fuel samples are prepared at B. S. Deore College of Engineering and

properties are tested from the third party, Horizon Services Chemical Lab at Pune

(M.S). Density and Heating value of test fuels is as given in the Table 1. D is

referred as pure diesel and K is for Karanja fuel and J is for Jatropha fuel. Engine

oil used for the study purpose meets the API CH-4, ACEA A3/B4, SAE 15 W-40

specification.

Table 1. Properties of Fuel.

Sr.

No.

Fuel

Blend

Density

(kg/m3)

CV

(kJ/kg)

Viscosity

(cSt)

Flash

Point

(oC)

Cloud

Point

(oC)

Pour

Point

(oC)

1 D 828 42300 2.85 76 6.5 3.1

2 J 870 39450 4.56 150 10 4.2

3 K 880 39890 4.52 166 14.2 5.1

4 KJD20 824 40367 3.80 94 7.3 3.1

5 KJD40 834 40778 3.98 130 7.9 3.3

6 KJ50 852 39470 3.88 155 9.8 4.5

7 K20J40D 840 40985 3.76 145 8.8 3.3

8 K20J60D 852 37710 3.92 150 8.4 3.5

9 Method ASTM

D4052

ASTM

D240

ASTM

D445

ASTM

D93

ASTM

D2500

ASTM

D97

Test setup consists of single cylinder, four stroke, VCR (Variable

Compression Ratio) Diesel engine connected to eddy current type dynamometer

for loading. The compression ratio can be changed without stopping the engine

and without altering the combustion chamber geometry by tilting cylinder block

arrangement. During the test fuel injection timing was maintain as a constant and



it was 23 degree BTDC. Setup is provided with necessary instruments for

combustion pressure and crank-angle measurements. These signals are interfaced

to computer through engine indicator for Pθ−PV diagrams. Provision is also made

for interfacing airflow, fuel flow, temperatures and load measurement. The set up

has stand-alone panel box consisting of air box, two fuel tanks for duel fuel test,

manometer, fuel measuring unit, transmitters for air and fuel flow measurements,

process indicator and engine indicator. Rotameters are provided for cooling water

and calorimeter water flow measurement. The setup enables study of VCR engine

performance for brake power, indicated power, frictional power, BMEP, IMEP,

brake thermal efficiency, indicated thermal efficiency, Mechanical efficiency,

volumetric efficiency, specific fuel consumption, A/F ratio and heat balance.

Labview based Engine Performance Analysis software package “EnginesoftLV”

is used for on line performance evaluation. A computerized Diesel injection

pressure measurement is optionally provided. Table 2 represents the engine

specifications and Fig. 1 shows a photograph of test setup.

Fig. 1. Photograph of VCR Single Cylinder Diesel Engine.

Engine used in this experiment was four stroke, naturally aspirated, water cooled

engine. Engine was commercial engine and is coupled with dynamometer.

Dynamometer was AG series eddy current dynamometer designed for testing of

engines upto 400 kW. The dynamometer is bi-directional. The shaft mounted finger

type rotor runs in a dry gap. A closed circuit type cooling system permits for a

sump. Dynamometer load measurement is from a strain gauge load cell and speed

measurement is from a shaft mounted three hundred sixty PPR rotary encoder.

During experimentation load on the engine was varied to measure the performance

at two different compression ratio 16 and 18. Initially test was conducted for Diesel

engine fuel then for Jatropha and Karanja fuel. Every time fuel tank and fuel line

was completely drain out and to ensure new fuel supply to the engine was initially

run for five to ten minutes. To ensure the steady state readings were taken only when

the oil temperature was observed to be constant for a period of at least five minutes.



Table 2. Engine Specifications.

Details Specification

Type Single cylinder, Four stroke, Variable

Compression Ratio Diesel Engine

(Computerized)

Engine Kirloskar Make, Place of Manufacturer INDIA,

Water cooled, 3.5 kW at 1500 rpm, Stroke 110

mm, Bore 87.5 mm, 661 cc, CR range 12 – 18

Dynamometer Model ED-I, Manufacturer – Apex

Innovations, Eddy current type, Water cooled

Max load 7.5 kW.

Piezo Sensor Range 5000 PSI with low noise cable

Crank Angle Sensor Resolution 1 degree, Speed 5500 rpm, with

TDC pulse

Data Acquisition Device NI USB-62210, 16 Bit, 250 kS/s

Piezo Powering Unit Make – Cuadra, Model – AX 409

Digital Mili Voltmeter Range 0-200 mV, Panel Mounted

Temperature Sensor Type RTD, Thermocouple K Type

Temperature

Transmitter

Type two wire, Input RTD PT-100, Range 0 –

100oC, Output 4-20 mA and Type two wire,

Input Thermocouple Range 0 – 1200 o

C,

Output 4-20 mA

Load Indicator Digital, Range 0 – 50 kg, Supply 230 VAC

Load Sensor Load Cell, Type Strain Gauge, Range 0 – 50 kg

Fuel Flow Transmitter DP Transmitter, Range 0 – 500 mm WC

Air Flow Transmitter Pressure Transmitter Range (-) 250 mm WC

Software EnginesoftLV,

Rotameter Engine Cooling 40 – 400 LPH, Calorimeter 25

– 250 LPH

Emission analysis was conducted with portable emission analyser DELTA

1600S. Exhaust gases from the engine was taken directly to the sampling tube. It

measures carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrocarbons (HC) and

nitric oxide (NO). Both heated line and conditioning lines are provide with the

instrument. Heated line serves to avoid condensation by ensuring the gas

temperature about 200oC and conditioning line maintains the gas temperature

bellow 40oC and the saturation level is correct. The DELTA 1600-L determines

the emissions of CO (carbon monoxides), CO2 (carbon dioxides), HC

(hydrocarbons) with means of infrared measurement and O2 (oxygen) and NO

(nitrogen oxides) with means of electrochemical sensors. The 5-gas analysis is

processed by the integrated microprocessor and described in the display. Table 3

represents specification of emission analyser.

Table 3. Specifications of Emission Analyser.

Measurement Measuring Range Resolution

HC 0 – 10000 ppm 1 ppm

CO 0.000 – 9.999% 0.001%

CO2 0 – 20% 0.01%

O2 0 – 25% 0.01%



3. Results and Discussion

Tests were conducted on single cylinder VCR diesel engine. All experiments

were performed after ensuring the full warm-up. A plan was designed for the

experimental investigation. Different blends of fuels were tested. The tests were

conducted for different blends and were repeated for four times for every kind of

fuel, in order to increase the reliability of the test results. For each of the fuel,

engine was run on five different loads, 2 kg, 4 kg, 6 kg 8 kg and 10 kg of break

load on dynamometer. The engine load was controlled by dynamometer. The

dynamometer is eddy current type, water cooled with a maximum load of 7.5 kW.

3.1. Combustion analysis

3.1.1. Pressure crank angle

Figures 2 and 3 represent pressure vs. crank angle diagram for compression ratio of

18 and 16 respectively. Figures 4 and 5 represents summary of the combustion data.

For a compression ratio of 18 it is observed that the peak pressure for Jatropha fuel

was maximum by 6% compared with pure diesel, whereas for Karanja it is 4%, for

KJD20 and KJD40 it was more by 1% compared with pure biodiesel. However for

the blends of K20J40D peak pressure was low by about 12% compared with pure

diesel fuel. For K20J60D fuel peak pressure was low by 2% compared with pure

diesel. For a compression ratio of 16, peak pressure for all fuel was also decreased

and it was observed that the peak pressure was low for each blends compare with

diesel fuel. This is mainly because of increase in ignition delay.

Higher pressure rise was observed for fuel due to longer delay. Pressure reached

during the second stage of combustion depends on the duration of delay period.

Long delay period results in high pressure rise, since more fuel is present in the

cylinder before the rate of burning comes under control. Same trend was observed

compared with Jatropha fuel since; Jatropha has 6% more pressure rise compared

with diesel fuel. For the same proportion of Karanja and Jatropha pressure rise

observed to be same. However, with increase in Jatropha content for the fix value of

Karanja content pressure was low compare with diesel fuel. This is due to higher

density of biodiesel fuel. It is observed that for all blends peak pressure was

observed to be after TDC only this ensures the smooth running of engine.

Fig. 2. Pressure vs. Crank Angle (CR-18).



Fig. 3. Pressure vs. Crank Angle (CR-16).

Fig. 4. Ignition Delay, Peak Pressure and

Peak Heat Release Rate for Compression Ratio 18.

Fig. 5. Ignition Delay, Peak Pressure and

Peak Heat Release Rate for Compression Ratio 16.



Figure 6 represents net heat release rate for the different blends for the two

compression ratios 16 and 18. It is observed that ignition delay was short for

biodiesel and its blends compare with biodiesel. Also the maximum heat release

rate for biodiesel was less compared with pure biodiesel. Long delay results in

accumulation of fuel in the cylinder and hence higher heat release rate was

observed for the diesel fuel. Due to shorter delay higher heat release rate for

biodiesel occur earlier compare with diesel. Because of higher oxygen content of

biodiesel combustion in biodiesel is complete in the after main combustion phase.

Fig. 6. Net Heat Release Rate.

3.1.2. Mass fraction burn

Figures 7 and 8 represent crank angle for the same mass fraction burn. The data

regarding mass fraction burn was the part of LABVIEW software which was used

in this analysis. At compression ratio of 18 it is observed that start of combustion

occurs at earlier stage for K20J40D fuel, 21 degree BTDC, i.e., 33.33% earlier

than diesel, 38.1% earlier than Jatropha and 47.62% earlier than Karanja. It is

observed that 90% of the mass was burn at about 14.44 degree ATDC where as

for other fuel same mass was burn at 18 degree ATDC and more. This indicates

early burning property of this blend. However as compression ratio decreases to

16 for the fuel K20J40D fuel combustion starts at 18 degree BTDC. This is

mainly due to decrease in temperature of the charge.

Fig. 7. Mass Fraction Burn (CR-18).



Fig. 8. Mass Fraction Burn (CR-16).

3.1.3. Mean gas temperature

Figures 9 and 10 represent mean gas temperature vs. crank angle diagram. It is

observed that at a compression ratio 18, mean gas temperature was low for

K20J40D. This temperature is 6.01% less than diesel, 0.8% less than Jatropha,

41.82% less than Karanja and 47.83% less than KJD20 and 6.37% less than

K20J60D. This low temperature results in to low NOx emission and even

combustion efficiency is improved due to complete combustion. However as the

compression ratio decreases to 16 Jatropha is having lower mean gas temperature

compare with other fuels. K20J40D fuel temperature is 766.46℃ which is 48-

49% less than any other fuel except Jatropha. It is observed that for both

compression ratios for fixed content of Karanja (20%) with increase in content of

Jatropha mean gas temperature was decreasing first and again increases, it is

observed to be minimum when Jatropha content is 40% by volume. This indicates

that the fuel K20J40D can be low emission environmental friendly fuel for Indian

rural requirements where Karanja and Jatropha can easily available.

Fig. 9. Mean Gas Temperature (CR-18).



Fig. 10. Mean Gas Temperature (CR-16).

3.2. Energy analysis

3.2.1. Break power

Figures 11 and 12 indicate break power variation vs. engine load. It was observed that

there were no significant differences in break power of the engine between for

biodiesel, its blends and diesel fuel for both compression ratios 18 and 16. At

maximum load for any compression ratio difference between petroleum diesel and

pure biodiesel is less than 1.5% only. This is mainly due to higher SFC at higher load

at any compression ratio, lower heating value and higher oxygen content of biodiesel.

Since density of the biodiesel fuel is more than petro diesel, biodiesel supplied to the

engine is more than diesel fuel, which compensate for the loss of heating value.

Fig. 11. Break Power vs. Load on Engine (CR-18).



Fig. 12. Break Power vs. Load on Engine (CR-16).

3.2.2. Specific fuel consumption

Figures 13 and 14 represent effect on fuel consumption with increase in load

on engine. It is observed that with increase in load on engine SFC decreases

for all the fuels. At maximum load of 10 kg and compression ratio 18,

Karanja fuel has 10% more fuel consumption than Diesel and 6.6% more than

Jatropha. For KJD20 fuel consumption is 10% higher compare with diesel,

6.66% compare with Jatropha and same compare with Karanja. For KJD40

fuel consumption is higher by 6.89% compare with diesel, 3.45% higher

compare with Jatropha and 3.4% lower compare with Karanja. For K20J40D

fuel consumption was higher by 12.9% compare with diesel, 9.67% higher

compare with Jatropha and 3.23% higher compare with Karanja. This

indicates that for fixed content of Karanja, increase in content of Jatropha

results in higher fuel consumption. It is observed that density of blends of the

fuel is 2 to 5% more than petro-diesel. Since density is higher than diesel fuel

specific fuel consumption is higher for blends compare with diesel.

Fig. 13. Specific Fuel Consumption vs. Load on Engine (CR-18).



Fig. 14. Specific Fuel Consumption vs. Load on Engine (CR-16).

3.2.3. Break thermal efficiency

Figures 15 and 16 represent effect of engine load on break thermal efficiency. It is

observed that for Jatropha fuel break thermal efficiency is higher at any load

compare with any other fuel. It is observed that for a compression ratio of 18,

compare with diesel, Jatropha fuel has 37.75% higher efficiency at low load of 2

kg and about 9.29% higher at maximum load of 10 kg. Similarly for Karanja fuel

it is observed that compare with diesel efficiency is higher by 15.94% at low load

of 2 kg and 6.71% higher at maximum load of 10 kg. For the blend KJD20 it is

observed that for a maximum load of 10 kg thermal efficiency is 4.89% less than

diesel fuel and 15.6% less than Karanja and Jatropha fuel.

Fig. 15. Break Thermal Efficiency vs. Load on Engine (CR-18).



Fig. 16. Break Thermal Efficiency vs. Load on Engine (CR-16).

For KJD40 it is observed that for a maximum load of 10 kg thermal efficiency is

1.18% less than diesel, 11.54% less than Jatropha and 8.5% less than Karanja. For

K20J40D it is observed that at a maximum load of 10 kg thermal efficiency is

7.08% less than diesel, 18.05% less than Jatropha and 14.8 % less than Karanja.

Similarly for K20J60D thermal efficiency is 2.73% less than diesel, 13.26% less

than Jatropha and 10.1% less than Karanja. This shows that with increase in content

of Jatropha for fix content of Karanja thermal efficiency decrease first and then

again increases this is because of change in heating value and SFC. Also it is

observed that decrease in compression ratio has a significant change (decrease) in

thermal efficiency for all fuel blends. However, it is observed that for fuel blend

K20J40D change is less than 1%.

3.2.4. Mechanical efficiency

Figures 17 and 18 represent effect on mechanical efficiency with increase in

load on engine. It is observed that at compression ratio 18, for Jatropha and

Karanja biodiesel at part load operation mechanical efficiency is close to diesel

fuel however, with increase in load on engine for both these fuels efficiency

decrease by about 15 to 17%. For other blends similar effects are observed. At a

load range of 6 to 10 kg loss in mechanical efficiency is about 20 to 22%

compare with diesel fuel. However, decrease in compression ratio to 16 it is

observed that all the fuel blends are having the efficiency is more or less same

compare with diesel fuel.

3.2.5. Volumetric efficiency

Figures 19 and 20 represent effect on volumetric efficiency. For a compression

ratio of 18 and 16 no any significant variation is observed for Jatropha and

Karanja compare with diesel fuel. Similarly for other blends of fuel changes

observed is less than 1% only.



Fig. 17. Mechanical Efficiency vs. Load on Engine (CR-18).

Fig. 18. Mechanical Efficiency vs. Load on Engine (CR-16).

Fig. 19. Volumetric Efficiency vs. Load on Engine (CR-18).



Fig. 20. Volumetric Efficiency vs. Load on Engine (CR-16).

3.2.6. Emission analysis

3.2.6.1. CO emission

Figures 21 and 22 represent CO emission with increase in load on engine. For a

compression ratio of 18 it is observed that at low load 2 kg CO emission was

higher however, with increase in load emission reduces. This is because of

increase in load increases the temperature and hence combustion is complete. At a

low load of 2 kg for Karanja fuel CO emission reduces by 50% compare with

diesel fuel and for Jatropha fuel it reduces by 12.5%. For the blend KJD20 has

same emission as that of diesel fuel. For a blend KJD40 and K20J60D about 75%

emission was reduced compare with diesel and Jatropha fuel. Compare with

Karanja reduction was observed to be 50%. For K20J40D fuel CO emission was

observed to be ZERO for the entire load range. Higher oxygen content of and

lower carbon to hydrogen ratio of a biodiesel may tend to reduce CO emission.

Also it is observed that reduction in compression ratio increases CO emission for

the fuels. This is mainly because of decrease in mean gas temperature.

Fig. 21. CO Emission vs. Load on Engine (CR-18).



Fig. 22. CO Emission vs. Load on Engine (CR-16).

3.2.6.2. CO2 emission

Compared with diesel fuel CO2 emission for Jatropha and Karanja was observed

to be lower by about 10 to 15% (Figs. 23 and 24). This is mainly due to the fact

that biodiesel has low carbon to hydrogen ratio compare with diesel fuel. For the

blend K20J40D it is observed that the emission was by about 25 to 30% with

increase in load compare with diesel, Jatropha and Karanja fuel. This is due to

improved combustion characteristics.

Fig. 23. CO2 Emission vs. Load on Engine (CR-18).



Fig. 24. CO2 Emission vs. Load on Engine (CR-16).

3.2.6.3. NOx Emission

Figures 25 and 26 represent effect on NOx emission with increase in load on

engine. It is observed that increase in load increases the combustion temperature

that increases NOx. It is observed that for Jatropha and diesel fuel NOx emission

was same. For Karanja fuel for a load range, NOx emission was low about 20 to

22% compared with diesel fuel. For blends K20J40D at maximum load of 10 kg

NOx emission was 70% lower than diesel and Jatropha fuel. This is due to the

fact that the mean gas temperature for this fuel was 807 ℃ whereas the mean gas

temperature of diesel fuel was 858 ℃. Due to low combustion temperature NOx

emission was low at compression ratio 18. Decreasing the compression ratio to 16

NOx emissions was 64% less than diesel fuel. Improved combustion and low

mean gas temperature may be the cause of reduction in NOx.

Fig. 25. NOx Emission vs. Load on Engine (CR-18).



Fig. 26. NOx Emission vs. Load on Engine (CR-16).

4. Conclusion

Test was conducted on VCR diesel engine to study the effect of multiple blends

of biodiesel on engine performance. Results of blends of biodiesel were

compared with diesel fuel as well as biodiesel. Following is the summary

of findings;

• Higher density of biodiesel fuel and blends resulted in to a longer delay

period. This causes higher peak pressure. It is observed that start of

combustion occurs at earlier stage for K20J40D fuel, 21 degree BTDC

compare with diesel Jatropha and Karanja.

• K20J40D has low mean gas temperature that results in to low NOx emission

compared with other blends and fuels

• For every biodiesel fuel and its blends it is observed that the loss of heating

value is more than the increase of density which is the main cause of increase

fuel consumption.

• Decrease in compression ratio decreases the thermal efficiency of all the

fuels significantly, however for K20J40D fuel it is observed that the change

is less than 1%

• Among all the fuels it is observed that K20J40D fuel is observed

to be environmental free as it has very low CO and NOx emission.

However further study is required with injection pressure variation and

ignition advance.



References

1. Kloptenstem, W.E. (1985). Effect of molecular weights of fatty acid esters on

cetane numbers as diesel fuels. Journal of the American Oil Chemists

Society, 62(6), 1029-1031.

2. Harrington, K.J. (1986). Chemical and physical properties of vegetable oil

esters and their effect on diesel fuel performance. Biomass, 9(1), 1-17.

3. Masjuki, H.S. (1993). Biofuel as diesel fuel alternative: an overview. Journal

of Energy, Heat and Mass Transfer, 15, 293-304.

4. Lepori, W.; Engler, C.; Johnson, L.; and Yarbrough, C. (1992). Animal fats

as alternative diesel fuels in liquid fuels from renewable resources. In

Proceedings of an Alternative Energy Conference, 89-98.

5. Srinivasa, R.P; and Gopalakrishnan, V.K. (1991). Vegetable oils and their

methyl esters as fuels for diesel engines. Indian Journal Technology, 29, 292.

6. Stavarache, C.; Vinatoru, M.; Nishimura, R.; and Maeda, Y. (2005). Fatty

acids methyl esters from vegetable oil by means of ultrasonic energy.

Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 12(5), 367-372.

7. Aydin, H.; and Bayindir, H. (2010); Performance and emission analysis of

cottonseed oil methyl ester in a diesel engine. Renewable Energy, 35(3),

588-592.

8. Hazar, H. (2009). Effects of biodiesel on a low heat loss diesel engine.

Renewable Energy, 34(6), 1533-1537.

9. Ozsezen, A.N.; Canakci, M.; Turkcan, A.; and Sayin, C. (2009). Performance

and combustion characteristics of a DI diesel engine fuelled with waste palm

oil and canola oil methyl esters. Fuel, 88(4), 629-636.

10. Karabektas, M. (2009). The effects of turbocharger on the performance and

exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with biodiesel. Renewable

Energy, 34(4), 989-993.

11. Murillo, S.; and Miguez, J.L.; and Porteiro, J.; Granada, E.; and Moran, J.C.

(2006). Performance and exhaust emissions in the use of biodiesel in

outboard diesel engines. Fuel, 86(12-13), 1765-1771.

12. Hansen, A.C.; Gratton, M.R.; and Yuan, W. (2006). Diesel engine

performance and NOx emissions from oxygenated bio-fuels and blends with

diesel fuel. Transaction ASABE, 49, 589-595.

13. Reyes, J.F.; and Sepulveda, M.A.; (2006). PM-10 Emissions and power of a

diesel engine fuelled with crude and refined biodiesel from salmon oil. Fuel,

85(12-13), 1714-1719.

14. Carraretto, C.; Macor, A.; Mirandola, A.; Stoppato, A.; and Tonon, S. (2004).

Biodiesel as alternative fuel: experimental analysis and energetic evaluations.

Energy, 29(12-15), 2195-2211.

15. Raheman, H.; and Phadatare, A.G. (2004). Diesel engine emissions and

performance from blends of Karanja methyl ester and diesel. Biomass

Bioenergy, 27(4), 393-397.

16. Fernando, D.S.N.; Antonio, S.P.; and Jorge, R.T. (2003). Technical

feasibility assessment of oleic sunflower methyl ester utilization in diesel bus

engines. Energy Conversion Management, 44(18), 2857-2878.



17. Song, J.T.; and Zhang, C.H. (2008). An experimental study on the

performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with soybean

oil methyl ester. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part

D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 222, 2487-2496.

18. Al-Widyan, M.; Tashtoush, G.; and Abu-Qudais, M. (2002). Utilization of

ethyl ester of waste vegetable oils as fuel in diesel engines. Fuel Process

Technology; 76(2), 91-103.

19. Gumus, M.; and Kasifoglu, S. (2010). Performance and emission evaluation

of a compression ignition engine using a biodiesel (apricot seed kernel

oil methyl ester) and its blends with diesel fuel. Biomass Bioenergy,

34(1), 134-139.

20. Oner, C.; and Altun, S. (2009). Biodiesel production from inedible animal

tallow and an experimental investigation of its use as alternative fuel in a

direct injection diesel engine. Applied Energy, 86(10), 2114-2120.

21. Monyem, A.; and Van Gerpen, J.H.; Canakci, M. (2001). The effect of timing

and oxidation on emissions from biodiesel-fuelled engines. Transactions

ASAE, 44, 35-42.

22. Lin, B.F.; and Huang, J.H.; and Huang, D.Y. (2009). Experimental study of

the effects of vegetable oil methyl ester on DI diesel engine performance

characteristics and pollutant emissions. Fuel, 88(9), 1779-1785.

23. Fontaras, G.; Karavalakis, G.; Kousoulidou, M.; Tzamkiozis, T.;

Ntziachristos, L.; Bakeas, E.; Stournas, S.; and Samaras, Z. (2009). Effects of

biodiesel on passenger car fuel consumption, regulated and non-

regulated pollutant emissions over legislated and real-world driving cycles.

Fuel, 88(9), 1608-1617.

24. Armas, O.; Yehliu, K.; and Boehman, A.L. (2009). Effect of alternative fuels

on exhaust emissions during diesel engine operation with matched

combustion phasing. Fuel, 89(2), 438-456.

25. Hasimoglua, C.; Ciniviz, M.; Ozsert, I.; Icingur, Y.; Parlak, A.; and Salman,

M.C. (2008). Performance characteristics of a low heat rejection diesel

engine operating with biodiesel. Renewable Energy, 33(7), 1709-1715.

26. Godiganur, S.; Murthy, C.H.S.; and Reddy, R.P. (2009). Performance and

emission characteristics of a Kirloskar HA394 diesel engine operated on fish

oil methyl esters. Renewable Energy, 35(2), 355-359.

27. Sahoo, P.K.; Das, L.M.; Babu, M.K.G.; Arora, P.; Singh, V.P.; and Kumar,

N.R. (2009). Comparative evaluation of performance and emission

characteristics of jatropha, karanja and polanga based biodiesel as fuel in a

tractor engine. Fuel, 88(9), 1698-1707.

28. Lujan, J.M.; Bermudez, V.; Tormos, B.; and Pla, B. (2009). Comparative

analysis of a DI diesel engine fuelled with biodiesel blends during the

European MVEG-A cycle: Performance and emissions (II). Biomass

Bioenergy, 33(6-7), 948-956.

29. Ulusoy, Y.; Tekin, Y.C.; Etinkaya, M.; and Kapaosmanoglu, F. (2004).

The engine tests of biodiesel from used frying oil. Energy Source Part A,

26(10), 927-932.

30. Buyukkaya, E. (2010). Effects of biodiesel on a DI diesel engine performance,

emission and combustion characteristics. Fuel, 89(10), 3099-3105.



31. Choi, S.H.; and Oh, Y. (2006). The emission effects by the use of biodiesel

fuel. International Journal of Modern Physcis B, 20(25&27), 4481-4486.

32. Banapurmath, N.R; Tewari, P.G.; and Hosmath, R.S. (2008). Performance

and emission characteristics of a DI compression ignition engine operated on

Honge, Jatropha and sesame oil methyl esters. Renewable Energy, 33(9),

1982-1988.

33. Qi, D.H.; Geng, L.M.; Chen, H.; Bian, Yzh.; Liu J.; and Ren X.C.H.

(2009). Combustion and performance evaluation of a diesel engine fuelled

with biodiesel produced from soybean crude oil. Renewable Energy,

34(12), 2706-2713.

34. Sahoo, P.K.; Das, L.M.; Babu, M.K.G.; and Naik, S.N. (2007). Biodiesel

development from high acid value polanga seed oil and performance

evaluation in a CI engine. Fuel, 86(3), 448-454.

35. Kim, H.; and Choi, B. (2008). The effect of biodiesel and bioethanol blended

diesel fuel on nanoparticles and exhaust emissions from CRDI diesel engine.

Renewable Energy, 35(1), 157-163.

36. Mahanta, P.; Mishra, S.C.; and Kushwah Y.S. (2006). An experimental study

of Pongamia pinnata L. oil as a diesel substitute. Proceedings of Institution of

Mechanical Engineers, Journal of Power and Energy, 220, 803-808.

effect of compression ratio on energy and …jestec.taylors.edu.my/vol 9 issue 5 october 14/volume...

Documents