Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

RSM based optimization of performance and emission characteristics of DI T

compression ignition engine fuelled with diesel/aegle marmelos oil/diethyl
ether blends at varying compression ratio, injection pressure and injection
timing
⁎
M. Krishnamoorthia, , R. Malayalamurthia, P. Mohamed Shameerb
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Government College of Technology, Coimbatore 641013, Tamil Nadu, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, V V College of Engineering, Tirunelveli 627657, Tamil Nadu, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the support of developing a substitute for diesel fuel automobiles, the research in renewable energy has been
Aegle marmelos oil focused due to the hurly-burly situation for petroleum combat and environmental causes. The present study has
Diethyl ether been carried out in a naturally aspirated light-duty variable compression ratio (VCR) multi-fuel research engine.
Compression ratio As input amends, three significant input parameters as injection pressure (IP), compression ratio (CR) and in-
Injection pressure
jection timing (IT) have been taken. In this test, the input parameters are taken as 210 bar, 230 bar, 250 bar for
Injection timing
IP and 16, 17, 18 for CR and 21°, 23°, 25° before top dead center (bTDC) for IT. To outline the resulting output
Optimization
parameters like performance and emissions, the statistical tool like the design of experiments (DoE) have been
used for planning the experimental trials. The lesser exhaust pollution and better performance are the desirable
output factors by optimizing the input parameters via factorial design. For validating the models developed using
response surface methodology (RSM), the confirmatory tests have been carried out to portray the combined
effects of CR, IP and IT on the engine characteristics using all test fuels. Maximum Brake thermal efficiency of
30.05% was found for F(1) fuel at 230 bar IP and 18 CR with 23 °bTDC IT. Minimum carbon monoxide of 0.41%
was observed at IP of 230 bar and CR of 18 with 25 °bTDC IT and oxides of nitrogen of 205.7 ppm was found at
250 bar IP and 16 CR with 25 °bTDC IT for F(1) fuel.

1. Introduction
Due to fossil fuels depleting nature and emission effect in the en-
vironment, the renewable fuels like vegetable oil and biodiesel are
gaining a reputation for diesel engines [1]. Vegetable oils are con-
sidered as a promising alternative for diesel oil as it is possessing par-
allel properties with diesel [2,3]. In several nations, the excess quan-
tities of straight vegetable oils (SVO) are accessible copiously while
comparing other alternative fuels [4]. In diesel engines, SVOs derived
from plant seeds could be utilized appreciably [5]. Alcohols derived
from biomass and vegetable oils are significant renewable fuels for
diesel engines [6,7]. Similar power output and somewhat lower thermal
efficiency have been observed in diesel engines while fuelled with ve-
getable oil [8,9]. The main barrier for biodiesel commercialization is its
elevated cost for its production from edible or non-edible oils [10,11].
The biodiesel production cost accounts for 70% of its feedstock and also
a rapid increment in the market cost of vegetable oil [12]. Many
researchers have confirmed that the fuel blends of 20–30% vegetable oil
with diesel resulted in better performance while comparing with other
blends ratios [13]. Padian et al. [14] recorded that nozzle tip protrusion
of 2.5 mm, an injection timing of 30 °bTDC and injection pressure of
225 bar exhibits higher for brake thermal efficiency (BTE) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) emissions and lower brake specific fuel consumption
(BSFC), hydrocarbon (HC), smoke opacity. The effect of change of
compression ratio on the diesel engine emissions was investigated by
Sivaramakrishnan et al. [15] the results concluded that either reducing
CR or increasing IT greatly diminishes the opacity and NOx emissions,
also there was a reduction in HC and CO emission considerable levels.
Reheman et al. [16] investigated diesel engine with different CR and
biodiesel as fuel. They observed that exhaust gas temperature (EGT)
and BTE augmented and a decrement in BSFC was observed. Jaganath
Hirkude et al. [17] studied the combined effects of CR, IT and IP in
compression-ignition (CI) engine and concluded that IT of 27 °bTDC, CR
of 17.99 and IP of 250 bar were found to be the optimum value for CI

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: krishnamoorthism@gmail.com (M. Krishnamoorthi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.02.070
Received 19 May 2017; Received in revised form 18 November 2017; Accepted 8 February 2018
0016-2361/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Krishnamoorthi et al. Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297

Nomenclature IT injection timing

KOH potassium hydroxide
BSFC brake specific fuel consumption LHV lower heating value (kJ/kg)
bTDC before top dead center mg Milligram
BTE brake thermal efficiency (%) MJ mega joules (MJ)
CAD crank angle degree NOx oxides of nitrogen (ppm)
CI compression ignition pH potential hydrogen
CN cetane number (CN) rpm revolution per minute
CO carbon monoxide (%) rps revolution per seconds
CO2 carbon dioxide (%) RSM response surface methodology
CR compression ratio SVO straight vegetable oil
D composite desirability (%) TDC top dead center
DEE diethyl ether VCR variable compression ratio
DoE design of experiments w engine load in Newton
F0 Neat diesel W Watts
F1 80% diesel + 15% bael oil + 5% DEE
F2 60% diesel + 30% bael oil + 10% DEE Greek letter
HC Hydrocarbon (ppm)
HHV higher heating value (kJ/kg) γ ratio of specific heats
HRR heat release rate (J/deg) ° Degree
IC internal combustion Ρ density
IP injection pressure (bar) ʋ viscosity (centistokes)

engine fuelled with waste fried oil biodiesel blend along with mineral
diesel. Change in IT and CR resulted in enhancement of the engine
performance and reduced emission concentrations [18]. As an oxyge-
nated additive DEE has been added to diesel/biodiesel/vegetable oil
fuels to suppress the NOx emission level and also it has a low auto-
ignition temperature which acts as an excellent ignition enhancer
[19,20].
The general use of factorial design with several input parameters
significantly influences the quality performance or behavior of the
system [21]. Numerous physical and chemical processes have been
using the factorial design for optimization aspect [22]. For optimizing
the engine characteristics, the non-linear or linear optimization tools
like RSM, genetic algorithm, Taguchi method, artificial neural network
and factorial design are being employed [23]. From the survey on many
studies, it is observed that CR, IP, IT and fuel types influences the en-
gine distinctiveness. However, no research was done for depicting
better working condition (CR, IT and IP) in the IC engine fuelled with
bael oil (straight vegetable oil) blends at tradeoff engine load.
In this research paper, RSM based desirability approach has been
used for optimizing the engine operating parameters like CR, IP and IT
for the superior response of BTE, BSFC, HC, NOx, CO and smoke opacity
emission scale [24]. Minitab’17 software has been employed for opti-
mization analysis by dimensionless desirability response [25]. De-
pending on the nature of the problem, the responses of output have
been set either minimum, maximum, in the range, target and/or equal
[26].
2. Materials and methods
0.205 g/KOH and acid value – 8.02 mg KOH/g [28]. In free fatty acid
composition analysis, the bael oil consists of 12.5% of 12-hydro-
xyoctadec-cis-enolic acids along with normal fatty acids. Diethyl Ether
(DEE) of 99% purity has been purchased from a business enterprise
agent. The microemulsion is a less time-consuming procedure which
reduces the viscosity method compared in the direction of Transester-
ification, and also enhances the uniform mixture of diesel with vege-
table oil and alcohols/solvents [12,17]. Bael oil has been mixed with
DEE and diesel fuel by a blender device which is also stirred simulta-
neously in electromagnetic agitator for 20 min at 500 rpm. Then it has
been left stable for 30 min to achieve thermal equilibrium with the
atmospheric temperature before the experimental trial [3].
2.1. Fuel properties
ASTM D-93, ASTM D-1298, and ASTM D-445 standards have been
used for measuring the flash and fire point, density, and kinematic
viscosity respectively for various fuel blends. The flash and fire points
have been determined by closed cup fire point apparatus, meanwhile
the kinematic viscosity is measured using redwood viscometer [3]. The
determined properties of diesel, bael oil and DEE and its blends are
sorted in Tables 1 and 2. Three test fuels have been considered for the
examination such as neat diesel (F0) and another two test fuels are
blends with diesel, bael oil and diethyl ether (DEE) in the percentage of
80:15:5 (F1) and 60:30:10 (F2). Based on the better performance from
literature study, the above ternary fuels have been prepared [3,20].
Increment in percentage of vegetable oil in the blends leads to some
operating problems; which is reduced by raising the fuel additive

Aegle marmoles (bael) tree has been cultivated all over India, mostly Table 1
Properties of diesel, bael oil and DEE.
within the sanctuary gardens due to the position as a sacred tree;
likewise northern Srilanka and Malaya [3,27]. The bael seeds collected Property Diesel Bael oil DEE
from the Eastern Ghats in north Tamil Nadu or if bought the bael seed
at a cost of ten rupees per kg. The seeds were dried overnight at 55 °C in Element structure C16H34 C18H36O2 C2H5OC2H5
Density (kg/m3) 830 896 713
an oven to eliminate excess moisture. Bael seeds contain approximately Viscosity (cS) 2.7 24.3 0.23
45% of the oil. The oil has been extracted using a mechanical extractor Auto ignition point (° C) 200–400 < 370 160
and at the cost of 10 rupees per kg of seed. The approximate cost of bael Cetane number (CN) 50 51.7 > 124
oil production is rupees 44 per kg. The determined physio-chemical Pour point (°C) −20 −5 −110
Fire point (°C) 55–90 260 35
properties of bael oils are higher heating value (HHV) – 40,040 kJ/kg;
Lower heating value (kJ/kg) 43,600 36,300 33,900
lower heating value (LHV) – 36,300 kJ/kg, iodine value – 94 mg iodine/ Chemically correct A/F ratio 14.9 12.4 11.1
g (it belongs to monounsaturated vegetable oil); saponification value –

284
M. Krishnamoorthi et al. Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297

Table 2 gauge connected with fuel injection line measures the pressure ranges
Properties of blended fuels. from 100 to 400 bar. Initially, the test engine was operated without any
load for 20 min and after reaching stabilization the experiments were
S. No Blend Kinematic Density (kg/ Cetane Calorific value
viscosity (cS) m3) at 32 °C number (kJ/kg) carried out at steady ambient air intake temperature [17].

1 F0 2.7 830 50 43,600

2.4. Error analysis
2 F1 5.8 834 53.7 42,020
3 F2 8.9 838.1 57.5 40,440
Uncertainties and errors during experimental analysis may occur
due to calibration, instruments selection, observation, working condi-
fraction [12]. The bael oil has superior acidic property that may result tion, environment and method of the experimental tests [3]. The
in fuel line systems corrosion while the blends have higher volume measuring instruments have been chosen with a vision to keep these
concentration or during fuelling the engine with pure vegetable oil uncertainties as minimum as possible. The experimental uncertainties
without any additive [31]. As the insufficient ignition quality can lead have been calculated by Eq. (1);
to higher emission level, the ignition performance of fuel has the vital
importance for CI engines [5,11]. Cetane number (CN) defines the ig- Δq Δx 2 Δz 2 Δu 2 Δw 2
= ⎡ ⎤ +…+⎡ ⎤ + ⎡ ⎤ +…+⎡ ⎤
nition performance which could be determined with the following q ⎣ x ⎦ z
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ u ⎦ ⎣ w ⎦ (1)
formulae based on the volumetric concentration of each constituent
The uncertainty examination is necessary to validate the experi-
[19]:
ments precision. Uncertainties of the calculated and measured para-
meters are listed in Table 6. The calculated engine performance is be-
(1) Cetane number CNH = ∑i CNi Xi
lieved to be accurate within ± 3 [42].
(2) Calorific value CVH = ∑i CVi Xi

Where CNi is the cetane number of each constituent, CVi is the 2.5. Experimental design
calorific value of each constituent and Xi is the percentage of con-
stituents. Table 7 shows the factors investigated in this research with their
chosen level as injection timing, compression ratio, injection pressure
and fuel blends. The fuel injection timing (IT) varied in the range of 21°,
2.2. Test engine and facilities 23° and 25 °bTDC, fuel injection pressure (IP) is varied as 210, 230, and
250 bar, and the compression ratio (CR) is varied as 16:1, 17:1, and
The tests have been carried out in a direct injection (DI) variable 18:1 and the injector with three nozzle holes has been positioned near
compression ratio (VCR) test engine. The engine used for the study is the combustion chamber. Higher CR could cause for higher NOx and
Kirloskar VCR engine and its specifications are shown in Table 3. The lower CR reduces the BTE and increases the CO and HC emissions. Due
engine was equipped with an eddy current dynamometer and also other to lower clearance volume, the fuel particles hit the combustion
suitable arrangements were made to attain all the required controlling chamber walls and resulted in higher HC emissions. Due to insufficient
parameters. Exhaust gas analyzer AVL DI 444 model (Table 4) has been atomization, the lower IP can leads to incomplete combustion, mean-
used for measuring HC, NOx and CO emissions meanwhile, the smoke while much higher IP cause for fuel droplets quenching the in-cylinder
opacity has been measured with Smoke meter, model AVL437C wall and charge dilution problems. Retarded IT positively influences
(Table 5). K-type thermocouple has been used to determine the various the BSFC, CO and HC emission levels. Advanced IT (more than
temperatures at the respective position. To measure the cylinder gas
pressure, the piezoelectric transducer located in the cylinder head has Table 3
been used. Piezoelectric pressure transducers are suitable for de- Technical specifications of the test engine.
termining the quasi-static and dynamic, highly dynamic pressure curves
or pulsations [3]. Data acquisition system (DAQ) captures the signals Type KIRLOSKAR, VCR multi fuel, vertical, water
cooled, direct injection, naturally aspirated engine
from crank angle encoder and charge amplifier. The combustion ana-
No. of cylinders/No. of 01/04
lyses data are generally represented in terms of degree (°) of crank angle strokes
[21]. The crank angle encoder gives an angle and TDC (Top Dead Rated power 4.5 kW/petrol mode, 3.5 kW/diesel mode
center) correlation which is essential for calculating any crank angle Bore (mm)/Stroke(mm) 87.5/110
based consequences linked with combustion cycle. The water flow was Type of ignition Compression ignition
Compression ratio 17.5 (12–18)
adjusted to 70 and 250 L per hour for the calorimeter and engine Injection pressure 210 bar
cooling respectively based on the instruction provided by the engine Injection timing 21 °bTDC (21–25 °bTDC)
manufacturer [3]. Speed 1500 Rev/min
Diameter/No. of nozzle 0.3 mm/3
hole
2.3. Test procedure Dynamometer Eddy current dynamometer; Water cooled with
loading unit
ECU Make PE USA; Model PE3, Full build; with
All the experimental runs have been performed under 80% engine
peMonitor & peViewer software
load (trade-off operating condition) and 25 rps [3,30]. The standard Data acquisition system USB-6210; 16 bit; 4DI; Make-NI Instruments USA
injection timing of the test engine is 21 °bTDC. The shims were used to Software Enginesoft for engine performance analysis
vary the static injection timing by mounting the shim under the seat Crank angle sensor Make- Kubler Germany; speed 5500 rpm with TDC
flange in the fuel pump. For changing the injection timing initially, the pulse; Resolution 1°
Load cell Make VPG Sensortronics; Strain gauge type; Range
TDC position of the engine is marked on the flywheel. To attain the 0–50 kg
exact IT, the repeated operations have to be done by rotating slowly and Fuel flow measurement Differential pressure transmitter; Make-Yologawa
stopping the flywheel rapidly. The number of the shim is added and Japan; Range 0–500 mm WC
removed to adjust the standard IT to attain the desired IT. The thickness Cylinder pressure sensor Piezo electric sensor; Range 350 bar; Make PCB
USA
of the shim is 0.4 mm which corresponds to 2° crank angle advancement
Air flow measurement Model-SL1; Make Wika Germany; Range 250
in the fuel injection timing [21]. Similarly, the shims under the nozzle mmWC
spring are inserted and removed to vary the IP [14,18]. The pressure

285
M. Krishnamoorthi et al. Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297

Table 4
Technical specifications of gas analyzer AVL DI444.

Measured quantity Measuring range Resolution Accuracy

Carbon monoxide (CO) 0–10% vol 0.01% vol < 0.6% vol: ± 0.03% vol
≥ 0.6% vol: ± 5% vol
Hydrocarbon (HC) 0–20,000 ppm vol ≤2000:1 ppm vol, < 200 ppm vol: ± 10 ppm vol ≥200 ppm vol: 5%
> 2000:10 ppm vol
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 0–5000 ppm vol 1 ppm vol < 500 ppm vol: ± 50 ppm vol ≥500 ppm vol: ± 10
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0–20% vol 0.1% vol < 10% vol: ± 0.5% vol
≥10% vol: ± 5% vol

25 °bTDC) cause for progressive combustion, lesser NOx emissions and Table 6
opacity but diminishes the BTE and maximum cylinder gas pressure. Uncertainties of some measured and calculated parameters.
Advanced IT amplifies the NOx emissions along with a reduction in HC,
Test instruments Measuring Measured Uncertainty (%)
CO and smoke opacity, and further advancing of injection timing re- Principle parameters
sulted in inefficient combustion process. Among these factors, the fuel
blend is considered as a significant categorical factor which has no Burette Fuel flow ± 0.4
inherent ordering to the category. The other three factors injection Thermocouple K-type Temperature ± 0.1
Kobold ZOD flow Pulse pickup RPM of engine ± 0.2
timing, compression ratio and injection pressure are of numeric type meter
among the distinct values. Kinematic ± 1.3
viscosity
Pressure sensor Piezoelectric Cylinder pressure ±1
2.5.1. Factorial design
crystal type
To explore the combined effect of input responses, the Design of HC ± 0.1
experiments (DoE) is a non-linear method for multivariable problems CO2 ± 0.3
and it is the most economical and most effective technique. Factorial NOx ± 0.1
Smoke ± 0.8
design is used in the study by modeling and analysis of response
BSFC ± 1.5
parameters in order to acquire the engine characteristics [21]. This BTE ± 0.1
research work adopts a four factor- three level factorial design to ana- CO ± 0.01
lyze the combined effect of CR, IP and IT. The design matrix generated
by minitab’17 factorial design comprises 81 test runs as sorted in
Table 8. The experimental runs were conducted as per the run order Table 7
and the responses were varied as per the response column. The coeffi- Factors considered with their chosen levels.

cients and equations are developed by the multiple regression analysis Factors Factor type levels
which can be utilized to predict the output response [25,30].
1 2 3

2.5.2. Response surface methodology (RSM) Fuel Used Categoric Diesel (F0) Bael oil blend Bael oil blend
RSM is the collection of mathematical and statistical technique (F1) (F2)
which is helpful for modeling and analysis of problems during which Compression ratio Numeric 16 17 18
the aim is to optimize an output response that is manipulated by several Injection pressure Numeric 210 bar 230 bar 250 bar
Injection timing Numeric 21 °bTDC 23 °bTDC 25 °bTDC
factors (input factors). In this study, the RSM is used to model and
predict the response [23]. The experimental data (Table 8) was in-
vestigated via response regression and second-order polynomial models 2.5.3. Desirability approach
were generated using Eq. (2) [21], The constrained optimization and desirability approach are used for
real-life problems with multiple responses [14]. The desirability ap-
Δq Δx 2 Δz 2 Δu 2 Δw 2
= ⎡ ⎤ +…+⎡ ⎤ + ⎡ ⎤ +…+⎡ ⎤ proach possesses the advantages of flexibility in modifications, simpli-
q ⎣ x ⎦ ⎣ z ⎦ ⎣ u ⎦ ⎣ w ⎦ (2) city of use, availability, and importance to individual response [26].
Where Xi are numeric values of the factors, Y is the response, ɛ is the The approach involves converting each estimated response Yi that
experimental error, terms β0,βi,βii,βij are the regression coefficients and i varies over the range 0 < di < 1, where di value specifies the response
and j are linear and quadratic coefficients respectively [21]. For each value Yi to be more desirable. For instance a value of di = 1 represents a
fuel category, the second order polynomial models for each response completely acceptable response, while a value of di = 0 represents a
variable have been developed. The developed equation, if statistically completely undesired response [21]. The aim of each response is to
significant, represents a correlation between measured responses and minimize, maximize, in range or equal to, target based on the optimi-
factors and can be utilized to predict the response [22]. Response sur- zation nature. The objective of this study is to minimize the BSFC and
face plots are generated using these fitted models. By using the desir- also to reduce the emission levels of HC, CO, opacity and NOx si-
ability approach of RSM, the optimal combination of CR, IP and IT has multaneously.
been extracted [21]. For achieving minimizing response, the desirability di will be

Table 5
Technical specifications of smoke meter AVL 437C.

Opacity Absorption Rpm Oil Temperature

−1
Measuring Range 0–100% 0–99.99 m 400–6000 1/min 0–150 °C
Accuracy & repeatability ± 1% of full Scale Better than ± 0.1 m−1 ± 10 ± 2 °C
Resolution 0.1% 0.01 m−1 ±1 ± 1 °C

286
M. Krishnamoorthi et al. Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297

Table 8
Design matrix.

Std Order Run Order R P T Fuel BSFC BTE NOx CO OPACITY HC

bar bTDC kg/kW hr % ppm % % ppm

4 11 16 210 23 F(0) 0.3940 26.11 220.60 0.54 58.20 63.40

26 12 17 250 25 F(0) 0.3980 28.50 235.00 0.44 58.80 47.00
25 13 16 250 25 F(0) 0.4060 26.97 220.30 0.51 57.50 48.30
19 14 16 250 21 F(0) 0.3840 27.92 208.00 0.51 52.40 54.00
8 15 17 210 25 F(0) 0.3980 27.80 230.30 0.50 58.00 52.50
21 16 18 250 21 F(0) 0.3660 29.90 246.30 0.50 52.70 48.70
6 17 18 210 23 F(0) 0.3834 29.01 230.00 0.52 55.20 50.70
11 18 17 230 21 F(0) 0.3696 28.06 238.70 0.57 52.80 58.70
14 19 17 230 23 F(0) 0.3790 28.00 248.70 0.54 55.80 55.00
22 20 16 250 23 F(0) 0.3840 27.01 224.70 0.53 56.70 55.70
9 21 18 210 25 F(0) 0.3881 28.70 225.30 0.50 55.30 51.70
13 22 16 230 23 F(0) 0.4010 27.70 226.60 0.49 55.60 62.70
2 23 17 210 21 F(0) 0.3867 28.20 234.30 0.56 55.30 60.60
7 24 16 210 25 F(0) 0.4052 26.00 220.70 0.56 59.00 62.70
16 25 16 230 25 F(0) 0.4040 27.10 235.70 0.52 55.90 60.00
5 26 17 210 23 F(0) 0.3792 27.90 242.00 0.49 58.40 59.70
17 27 17 230 25 F(0) 0.3980 27.20 242.00 0.52 55.70 56.00
3 1 18 210 21 F(0) 0.3827 28.96 237.60 0.58 53.00 53.30
20 2 17 250 21 F(0) 0.3599 28.60 248.70 0.53 53.50 48.70
12 3 18 230 21 F(0) 0.3620 29.50 256.30 0.51 50.60 50.70
24 4 18 250 23 F(0) 0.3780 29.67 248.70 0.46 54.50 49.90
18 5 18 230 25 F(0) 0.3890 29.20 240.30 0.45 55.20 50.50
10 6 16 230 21 F(0) 0.3930 27.30 212.00 0.56 52.80 58.30
1 7 16 210 21 F(0) 0.3960 27.00 218.70 0.59 54.80 64.70
15 8 18 230 23 F(0) 0.3883 28.80 237.70 0.44 55.00 55.00
27 9 18 250 25 F(0) 0.4090 29.00 233.00 0.42 56.30 50.20
23 10 17 250 23 F(0) 0.3880 28.40 236.70 0.46 55.90 52.70
19 1 16 250 21 F(1) 0.3710 26.90 236.70 0.45 51.40 55.30
13 2 16 230 23 F(1) 0.3811 26.20 225.60 0.43 53.90 61.50
1 3 16 210 21 F(1) 0.3890 26.70 218.80 0.51 53.20 64.70
3 12 18 210 21 F(1) 0.3850 28.94 232.00 0.50 55.30 60.70
24 13 18 250 23 F(1) 0.3920 30.00 253.30 0.43 56.40 55.30
4 14 16 210 23 F(1) 0.4010 25.30 217.70 0.49 54.30 60.70
27 15 18 250 25 F(1) 0.4004 29.33 236.70 0.42 54.30 46.70
21 16 18 250 21 F(1) 0.3620 29.00 258.70 0.44 57.20 56.70
11 17 17 230 21 F(1) 0.3710 28.40 229.30 0.47 54.30 60.70
12 18 18 230 21 F(1) 0.3641 28.33 245.30 0.47 56.30 58.70
17 19 17 230 25 F(1) 0.3960 27.90 240.30 0.43 53.70 48.70
26 20 17 250 25 F(1) 0.3990 28.31 223.00 0.42 52.80 50.70
9 21 18 210 25 F(1) 0.4010 27.90 239.70 0.44 54.20 49.30
20 22 17 250 21 F(1) 0.3750 27.34 248.70 0.46 54.60 54.70
23 4 17 250 23 F(1) 0.3840 28.57 244.00 0.42 54.50 54.70
22 5 16 250 23 F(1) 0.3940 26.90 225.70 0.45 53.20 59.30
14 6 17 230 23 F(1) 0.3840 29.30 242.70 0.44 54.20 56.70
7 7 16 210 25 F(1) 0.3980 25.50 219.00 0.48 55.40 62.70
10 8 16 230 21 F(1) 0.3710 26.70 218.00 0.49 51.50 60.70
16 9 16 230 25 F(1) 0.3950 25.70 213.00 0.44 54.60 59.20
6 10 18 210 23 F(1) 0.3928 28.01 238.00 0.45 55.60 52.30
15 11 18 230 23 F(1) 0.3590 30.05 254.30 0.44 57.03 52.40
8 23 17 210 25 F(1) 0.3960 26.90 233.30 0.47 53.40 51.40
25 24 16 250 25 F(1) 0.4000 26.50 205.70 0.42 53.20 57.53
18 25 18 230 25 F(1) 0.3880 29.90 239.70 0.41 54.30 49.70
2 26 17 210 21 F(1) 0.3921 28.30 219.00 0.48 54.20 63.40
5 27 17 210 23 F(1) 0.3987 28.10 234.70 0.45 54.40 61.30
24 22 18 250 23 F(2) 0.3730 29.20 253.70 0.48 56.30 55.30
14 23 17 230 23 F(2) 0.3890 27.10 238.70 0.52 54.50 60.30
2 24 17 210 21 F(2) 0.4110 26.10 221.70 0.58 53.82 64.10
18 25 18 230 25 F(2) 0.4150 28.20 231.70 0.50 55.50 51.30
27 26 18 250 25 F(2) 0.4140 28.70 235.00 0.45 55.40 50.00
4 27 16 210 23 F(2) 0.4200 26.30 220.60 0.54 52.60 64.70
26 10 17 250 25 F(2) 0.4110 28.20 235.30 0.48 55.50 50.40
17 11 17 230 25 F(2) 0.4130 27.10 233.30 0.52 55.90 51.60
15 12 18 230 23 F(2) 0.3819 29.60 243.00 0.53 56.40 53.40
16 13 16 230 25 F(2) 0.3990 26.33 220.00 0.54 53.70 60.70
12 14 18 230 21 F(2) 0.3690 29.10 249.30 0.52 58.20 54.60
1 15 16 210 21 F(2) 0.4240 25.62 212.30 0.57 52.60 67.70
7 16 16 210 25 F(2) 0.4040 26.30 221.70 0.55 55.30 64.70
10 17 16 230 21 F(2) 0.4160 26.33 218.30 0.53 52.93 61.50
23 18 17 250 23 F(2) 0.3890 28.30 245.70 0.50 55.60 54.60
3 19 18 210 21 F(2) 0.3850 28.35 235.30 0.57 56.30 63.30
22 20 16 250 23 F(2) 0.3840 26.60 234.00 0.52 52.70 59.30
21 21 18 250 21 F(2) 0.3660 29.30 261.30 0.49 59.60 56.40
5 1 17 210 23 F(2) 0.3940 27.10 238.00 0.55 55.71 59.00
(continued on next page)

287
M. Krishnamoorthi et al. Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297

Table 8 (continued)

Std Order Run Order R P T Fuel BSFC BTE NOx CO OPACITY HC

bar bTDC kg/kW hr % ppm % % ppm

6 2 18 210 23 F(2) 0.4010 27.90 240.70 0.53 55.40 55.70

19 3 16 250 21 F(2) 0.3900 27.01 215.30 0.50 51.50 60.00
25 4 16 250 25 F(2) 0.4080 27.00 221.30 0.49 50.90 56.70
20 5 17 250 21 F(2) 0.3650 27.30 242.00 0.52 56.10 54.40
11 6 17 230 21 F(2) 0.4038 27.30 230.10 0.54 54.10 59.30
9 7 18 210 25 F(2) 0.4110 27.67 222.80 0.51 55.80 54.30
13 8 16 230 23 F(2) 0.4020 26.50 225.30 0.55 53.90 65.70
8 9 17 210 25 F(2) 0.4150 27.10 230.70 0.52 56.70 53.40

defined as, optimum value of factors is depicted from the values of the individual
desired function that maximizes D [14]. Based on the optimization
di = 1, when Yi ⩽ Lowi
criterion, by conducting confirmatory experimental trails, the various
Highi−Yi ⎞ i
wt solutions obtained from desirability approach have been validated [17].
di = ⎜⎛ ⎟ , when Lowi < Yi < High iHi
⎝ High iHi−Lowi ⎠ 3. Results and discussion
di = 0, when Yi ⩾ High iHi
3.1. Analysis of model
For the objective of set target for a response, the desirability di will
be defined as, Analysis of variations (ANOVA) provides the numerical information
di = 0, when Yi < Lowi,Yi > High iHi for the value of probability. Table 9 represents the ANOVA for different
output response indicators like BTE, BSFC, CO, HC, NOx and smoke
wt opacity. ANOVA has been utilized in this study to validate the stability
Y −Highi ⎞ i
di = ⎜⎛ ⎟ , when Ti > Yi > High iHi of the models [14]. For ‘p’ 0.05 is selected as a reference limit [22]. The
⎝ TiHi−Highi ⎠ regression statistics goodness of fit (R2) signifies how well the experi-
Y −Lowi ⎞
wti mental data matches the developed statistical models. A value ‘0’ sig-
di = ⎛ ⎜ , when Ti < Yi < High iHi
⎟
nifies that the correlation line does not fit meanwhile ‘1’ signifies a
⎝ TiHi−Lowi ⎠ perfect fit with the data [17]. Modified version of R2 is the goodness of
Similarly the definitions of di for other objective like maximum, prediction (Adjusted R2), which has been accustomed to the number of
equal to, in range can be found in Ref. [14]. Here Y is the value of the predictors in the model. The significant factor (Predictors R2) signifies
response, i represents the response, high and low represents the higher how well a regression model forecasts the responses obtained from new
and lower limits of the response respectively; T specifies the target observations. Table 9 represents the stability of the analyzed model
value of the response. The weights wti are used to give more importance using DoE. The reasonable agreement of ‘Pre R2’ values with the values
to the lower/upper bounds. Weights vary over the range of of ‘Adj R2’ has been observed, the difference between them less than
0.1 < wti < 10 ; a weight less than 1 give less emphasis, while greater 20% [21].
than 1 give more emphasis to the objective [17]. To obtain an overall
desirability objective, the individual desirability of each response are 3.2. Brake thermal efficiency (BTE)
combined using geometric mean function D which varies from 0 to 1,
that is calculated by Eq. (3) [25], Figs. 1 and 2 display the consequences of CR, IP and IT on BTE for F
1
(1) fuel and F(2) correspondingly. The useful output energy divided by
n
⎛ ⎞∑ r the input fuel energy in a diesel engine is termed as brake thermal ef-
D = ⎜∏ diri ⎟ i
ficiency [5]. For CR of 18, IP of 250 bar and IT of 21 °bTDC, the BTE of
⎝ i=1 ⎠ (3)
diesel has a maximum value of 29.9%. Highest BTE of 30.05% has been
Each response is assigned an importance (r) that is relative to other recorded for F(1) at CR of 18, IP of 230 bar and IT of 23 °bTDC. BTE is
response in this desirability objective function. Importance differs from optimized in this optimization process which gave more importance, as
the least important value of 1 to the most important value of 2 [21]. The most of the blended fuels have lower BTE when compared to that of
higher value of D represents a desirable and optimum solution. The neat diesel [6]. At higher CR, the increasing compression temperature

Table 9
Results of DoE – performance and emissions.

Source BTE BSFC CO NOx HC Opacity

(F0) Quadratic model Quadratic model Quadratic model Quadratic model Quadratic model Quadratic model

F p-value F p-value F p-value F p-value F p-value F p-value

Model 20.31 < 0.001 10.96 < 0.001 6.89 < 0.001 11.54 < 0.001 14.08 < 0.001 24.01 < 0.001
IP 16.0 0.001 2.390 0.141 19.11 < 0.001 3.26 0.089 46.83 < 0.001 11.38 0.004
IT 9.99 0.006 53.90 < 0.001 19.67 < 0.001 0.61 0.046 4.06 0.046 122.81 < 0.001
CR 155.8 < 0.001 20.38 < 0.001 15.34 0.001 50.80 < 0.001 53.59 < 0.001 16.44 0.001
IP2 – – 0.14 – – – 7.93 0.012 5.68 0.029 19.49 < 0.001
IT2 0.07 – 0.92 – 4.27 0.054 1.50 0.038 4.14 0.058 16.90 < 0.001
CR2 0.04 – 4.92 0.04 0.04 – 17.64 0.001 0.29 – 12.40 0.003
IP × IT 0.05 – 12.80 0.002 – – – – 0.46 – 6.65 0.021
CR × IP 0.48 0.045 0.84 0.372 0.80 – 4.89 0.041 11.15 0.004 7.87 0.012
CR × IT 0.29 – 2.31 0.147 2.80 0.011 17.22 0.001 0.53 – 2.19 0.058

288
M. Krishnamoorthi et al.
Fig. 1. Brake thermal efficiency for F(1) fuel.
leads to a reduction in the ignition delay period [30]. Above CR range
of 18:1, the BTE has slight drop due to inadequate combustion space
inside clearance volume [31]. Poorer combustion has been caused due
to lower clearance depth contributed by hitting of fuel particles on the
combustion chamber wall [29]. The finer droplets of fuel have been
achieved at higher injection pressure; which may influence the spray
penetration and its pattern [14]. There are only small increments in
BTE at the range of 235 bar to 250 bar injection pressure. The lower
depth penetration of fuel particles in the combustion chamber due to
fine droplet size and also have lower momentum [15]. At lower CR and
IP with 23 °bTDC IT, the minimum BTE of 25% has been observed for F
(2) fuel blend. Above the injection pressure of 235 bar, high-velocity
atomized fuel particles strike the combustion chamber wall and trim
down the fuel evaporation rate and consequently the improvement in
BTE is negligibly small [17]. Using the second order response surface
models, the regression equations has been developed for BTE for the
test fuels includes interaction terms, quadratic terms and linear terms of
the input factors i.e., CR, IP and IT [21]. The predicted model for BTE
are given in Eqs. (4)–(6) as follows,
F(0) – Diesel
BTE (%) = 15.4 + 0.099 × IP−0.94 × IT + 0.28 × CR−0.00001 × IP × IP
+ 0.0099 × IT × IT + 0.029 × CR × CR−0.0006 × IP × IT
−0.00371 × IP × CR + 0.0287 × IT × CR
F(1) – Diesel/bael oil/DEE
BTE (%) = −108.9 + 0.167 × IP−0.67 × IT + 13.25 × CR
−0.000897 × IP × IP + 0.0876 × IT × IT + 0.466 × CR × CR
−0.00946 × IP × IT + 0.00283 × IP × CR
+ 0.1442 × IT × CR
F(2) – Diesel/bael oil/DEE
Fig. 2. Brake thermal efficiency for F(2) fuel.
Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297
BTE (%) = 1.4 + 0.065 × IP + 5.04 × IT −6.09 × CR−0.000149 × IP × IP
−0.0582 × IT × IT + 0.267 × CR × CR−0.00148 × IP × IT
+ 0.00371 × IP × CR−0.1187 × IT × CR (6)
3.3. Brake specific fuel consumption
Quadratic nature of model has been developed for BSFC. The chief
effects of the factors measured for BSFC model are significant (neat
diesel), which has been represented in Tables 9 and 10. Figs. 3 and 4
shows that the BSFC is reduced with an increase in IP (from 210 to
240 bar) for test fuel F(1) and F(2) respectively. With increasing com-
pression ratio and fuel injection pressure, the BSFC value shows de-
crement [15]. The minimum BSFC is observed in F(1) as 0.359 kg/kW-
hr at 18 CR, 230 bar IP and 23 °bTDC IT which is 7.5% lower than that
of neat diesel. The finer atomization and improved mixing lead to lower
BSFC at higher IP. At CR of 17, IP of 250 bar and IT of 21 °bTDC, F(0)
fuel recorded lower BSFC of 0.3599 kg/kW-hr. An increase in fuel in-
jection time angle contributed to decreasing in ignition delay thereby
reduces BSFC [12]. For equivalent output power, the quantity of in-
jected fuel into the combustion chamber is augmented in the blended
fuel operation due to the lower calorific value of the fuel [12]. At CR of
17, IP of 250 bar and IT of 21 °bTDC, F(2) fuel shows lower BSFC of
(4) 0.365 kg/kW-hr which is 1.41% higher than that of neat diesel. By in-
creasing the CR, the maximum cylinder pressure has been achieved;
which contributed to more efficient output power by the fuel supply in
hot combustion chamber [25]. Due to their higher density, the blended
fuels exhibit higher BSFC for same injection pressure and volume as it
has been measured on a mass basis [32]. Beneficial effects on BSFC
have been observed for the addition of DEE to diesel with SVO [19].
Addition of DEE improves the properties of vegetable oil by reducing its
(5) viscosity, auto-ignition temperature and enhancing cetane number
[33]. Generally, BSFC is lower for standard fuel injection timing at-
tributed to combustion process imminent at the top dead center [17].
The maximum BSFC of about 0.424 kg/kW-hr has been observed in F(2)
at CR of 16, IP of 210 bar and IT of 21 °bTDC which is 7.07% higher
compared to that of neat diesel. The experimental data of BSFC for all
test fuels have been modeled by multiple regressions to fit the second
289
M. Krishnamoorthi et al. Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297

Table 10 ignition delay [30]. The increasing IP contributed to better air-fuel

Model evaluation. mixing, better atomization of fuel particles, increasing combustion ef-
ficiency and reduction in ignition delay [17]. The better oxidation has
Model Fuel BSFC BTE NOx Opacity CO HC
kg/kW hr % ppm % % ppm been observed for blended fuel operations when compared to that of
diesel contributed by the addition of oxygenating DEE [33]. The max-
R2 (%) F(0) 85.29 91.49 85.93 92.71 78.49 88.17 imum CO scale of about 0.58% has been recorded by F(2) fuel at IP of
Adj. R2 (%) F(0) 77.51 86.98 78.48 88.85 67.10 81.91
210 bar, CR of 17 with 21 °bTDC IT which is 3.57% higher compared to
Pre. R2 (%) F(0) 63.33 80.80 65.39 81.09 51.40 69.50
R2 (%) F(1) 93.53 89.61 92.62 92.26 87.13 88.71 the CO level of neat diesel. Due to ignition delay and insufficient heat
Adj. R2 (%) F(1) 90.11 84.12 88.72 88.16 80.32 82.74 for fuel evaporation at lower compression ratio, the CO emission has
Pre. R2 (%) F(1) 84.51 72.91 80.97 80.42 66.17 73.09 been augmented [34]. As the ignition delay increases, the combustion
R2 (%) F(2) 89.06 91.49 94.56 87.72 89.47 88.44 duration reduces, which resulted in incomplete combustion of fuel [24].
Adj. R2 (%) F(2) 83.27 86.99 91.67 81.23 83.89 82.32
During combustion, the CO molecules may absorb some oxygen mole-
Pre. R2 (%) F(2) 72.03 80.03 85.52 68.74 73.43 71.58
cules from vegetable oils and DEE, and gets converted into CO2, thus the
formation of CO is reduced [19]. The spray penetration length becomes
order polynomial equations [22]. The regression models developed for lower due to the lower density of DEE than that of diesel [35]. DoE has
BSFC for individual test fuels by DoE are expressed in Eqs. (7)–(9), shown that the predicted model of CO emission possess 88% significant
confidence, which is given in Eqs. (10)–(12) as follows,
F(0) – Diesel
F(0) – Diesel
BSFC (kg / kWhr ) = 4.23−0.00639 × IP−0.0839 × IT −0.2517 × CR
CO (%) = −0.01 + 0.047 × IP−0.158 × IT + 0.265 × CR
+ 0.000002 × IP × IP + 0.000618 × IT × IT
+ 0.00571 × CR × CR + 0.000083 × IP × CR −0.000001 × IP × IP + 0.00546 × IT × IT −0.002 × CR × CR
(7) −0.00333 × IP × CR−0.00625 × IT × CR (10)
+ 0.001383 × IT × CR

F(1) – Diesel/bael oil/DEE

F(1) – Diesel/bael oil/DEE
CO (%) = 5.59−0.01358 × IP−0.1099 × IT −0.2277 × CR
BSFC (kg / kWhr ) = 1.688−0.01413 × IP + 0.002 × IT −0.0351 × CR
+ 0.000018 × IP × IP + 0.00264 × IT × IT
+ 0.000024 × IP × IP−0.000828 × IT × IT
+ 0.00556 × CR × CR + 0.00025 × IP × CR
−0.00151 × CR × CR + 0.00013 × IP × IT
−0.00125 × IT × CR (11)
−0.000006 × IP × CR + 0.000679 × IT × CR (8)

F(2) – Diesel/bael oil/DEE

F(2) – Diesel/bael oil/DEE
CO (%) = −3.51 + 0.00866 × IP + 0.078 × IT + 0.293 × CR
BSFC (kg / kWhr ) = 4.99−0.00611 × IP−0.126 × IT −0.126 × CR
−0.000021 × IP × IP−0.00083 × IT × IT −0.005 × CR × CR
−0.000002 × IP × IP + 0.00211 × IT × IT
+ 0.00104 × IP × IT −0.00167 × IP × CR−0.00417 × IT × CR
−0.00104 × CR × CR + 0.000212 × IP × IT
(12)
+ 0.000092 × IP × CR + 0.00579 × IT × CR (9)

3.5. Oxides of nitrogen emissions

3.4. Carbon monoxide emissions
Figs. 5 and 6 shows the variations of CO emissions for F(1) and F(2)
fuel respectively. The small p-values of all considered factors specify
that their contribution is significant to CO emission as indicated by DoE
in Table 9. The minimum CO emission observed in F(1) is 0.41% at CR
of 18, IP of 230 bar and IT of 25 °bTDC which is 8.8% lower compared
to neat diesel. The maximum CO emission has been observed for F(1)
fuel as 0.51% at CR of 16, IP of 210 bar and IT of 21 °bTDC. Increased
CR value is a potential reason for falling CO emissions, which is at-
tained by augmenting air temperature during compression thereby
better fuel combustion, which has been achieved with reduction in
At 1500 rpm and 80% engine load, the effects of CR, IP and IT on
NOx emissions for F(1) and F(2) fuel have been demonstrated in Figs. 7
and 8. From Tables 9 and 10, it can be observed that all the considered
factors on NOx emissions is under 98% confidence level. The turbulence
of high temperature burned gasses with colder air or air-fuel mixture
and the conversion of NO2 back to NO contributed for higher con-
centrations of NOx [36]. The CR has been adjusted to augment the
thermal efficiency and to optimize NOx emission concentration in a
diesel engine, when powered with vegetable oil/diesel blends. Higher
CR (about CR18 and above) could cause higher scale of NOx, HC and
smoke opacity attributed to wall quench of the fuel particles [29]. The

Fig. 3. Brake specific fuel consumption for F(1) fuel.

290
M. Krishnamoorthi et al.
Fig. 4. Brake specific fuel consumption for F(2) fuel.
minimum NOx emission has been found for neat diesel at CR of 16, IP of
250 bar and IT of 21 °bTDC as 208 ppm. The minimum NOx has been
observed at CR of 16, IP of 250 bar and IT of 25 °bTDC for F(1) as
205.7 ppm, meanwhile for diesel it is 220.3 ppm. The NOx formation
starts closer to stoichiometry and lean flammable combustion during
premixed combustion phase [37]. Addition of DEE decreases NOx
emissions by reducing peak combustion temperature [33]. The injected
fuel particle size of vegetable oil is large when compared to that of
diesel which lessen the combustion efficiency and maximum tempera-
ture, and hence NOx were lower [38]. At higher compression ratio and
injection pressure with 23 °bTDC IT, NOx emission was at peak level,
which is shown in Table 8. At 18 CR, 250 bar IP and 21 °bTDC IT for F
(2), the maximum NOx emission of about 261.3 ppm is recorded which
is 6.09% higher than that of neat diesel. Higher CR increases the in-
cylinder temperature which leads to increase in flame temperature
during the combustion process resulted in higher NOx formation
[30,37]. The experimental results of NOx emissions for all test fuels are
modeled by multiple regression to fit the second order polynomial
equations [14]. The regression model has been developed by DoE for
NOx emission are expressed in Eqs. (13)–(15),
F(0) – Diesel
NOx (ppm) = −4494 + 4.46 × I + 88 × IT + 368.1 × CR
−0.692 × IP × IP−9.5 × IT × IT + 0.0009 × IP × IT
+ 0.1768 × IP × CR−3.319 × IT × CR (13)
F(1) – Diesel/bael oil/DEE
NOx (ppm) = −2316 + 5.27 × IP + 109.2 × IT + 68.7 × CR
−0.00451 × IP × IP−1.606 × IT × IT −2.86 × CR × CR
−0.2096 × IP × IT + 0.1092 × IP × CR + 0.667 × IT × CR
(14)
F(2) – Diesel/bael oil/DEE
Fig. 5. Carbon monoxide emission for F(1) fuel.
291
Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297
NOx (ppm) = −3077−1.11 × IP + 158.3 × I + 178.7 × CR
+ 0.00101 × IP × IP−1.989 × IT × IT −3.88 × CR × CR
−0.0688 × IP × IT + 0.1474 × IP × CR−3.063 × IT × CR
(15)
3.6. Hydrocarbon emissions
The effects of compression ratio and injection system on HC emis-
sions for F(1) and F(2) fuel have been presented in Figs. 9 and 10. Better
combustion takes place at higher CR due to enhanced pressure and
temperature values resulted in lower HC level [26]. The minimum HC
emission has been found for fuel F(1) is 46.8 ppm at 18 CR, 250 bar IP
with 25 °bTDC IT. With the addition of DEE, lower HC emission has
been observed for blended fuels compared to that of diesel [39]. The
improvement in combustion reduces HC emission for the fuels with
increment in engine load [14]. At CR of 16, IP of 210 bar and IT of
21 °bTDC, the maximum HC emission has been measured for fuel F(2)
was 67.7 ppm which is 5.12% more compared to that of neat diesel.
Fuel molecules impingement on combustion chamber walls and the
condition of cold engine cause for quenching of combustion reactions
and combustion products mixes with cooler air contributed to HC
emissions [26]. Due to a complete combustion and less dissociation,
fewer HC emissions have been observed [25]. At 18 CR, 250 bar IP and
25 °bTDC IT for F(2), the minimum HC emission has been recorded as
50.00 ppm which is 0.4% lower than that of neat diesel. The higher
oxygen content of DEE and vegetable oil reduces the stoichiometric air/
fuel ratio resulted in lower HC [30]. At 16 CR, 210 bar IP and 21 °bTDC
IT, the maximum HC emission level has been observed as 64.7 ppm for
neat diesel operation. The reason for higher HC emission is that higher
ignition delay leaves a very small time for combustion [22]. The re-
gression equations developed for HC emissions for the test fuels using
the second order response surface models that include quadratic terms,
interaction terms and linear terms of the three input factors i.e., CR, IP
and IT [21]. DoE has been showed that the predicted HC model with
98% significant confidence and they are given in Eqs. (16)–(18) below,
F(0) – Diesel
M. Krishnamoorthi et al.
Fig. 6. Carbon monoxide emission for F(2) fuel.
HC (ppm) = 355 + 0.24 × IP + 14.2 × IT −50.5 × CR−0.0054 × IP × IP
−0.461 × IT × IT + 0.489 × CR × CR + 0.0108 × IP × IT
+ 0.1071 × IP × CR + 0.0233 × IT × CR (16)
F(1) – Diesel/bael oil/DEE
HC (ppm) = 242−1.72 × IP + 23.6 × IT −23.6 × CR + 0.00013 × IP × IP
−0.241 × IT × IT + 1.066 × CR × CR + 0.0288 × IP × IT
+ 0.0528 × IP × CR−1.222 × IT × CR (17)
F(2) – Diesel/bael oil/DEE
HC (ppm) = 816−1.73 × IP + 16 × IT −80.1 × CR + 0.00103 × IP × IP
−0.293 × IT × IT + 2.311 × CR × CR + 0.0194 × IP × IT
+ 0.0396 × IP × CR−0.492 × IT × CR (18)
3.7. Smoke opacity
Higher rate of fuel combustion during the acceleration and decel-
eration of engine lead to smoke opacity [5]. The optimum level of swirl
motion, air-fuel ratio and higher injection pressure enhances the fuel
atomization and combustion [26]. The effects of CR, IP and IT on smoke
opacity for the fuel F(1) and F(2) are shown in Figs. 11 and 12 re-
spectively. Minimum smoke opacity has been observed in F(1) is 51.4%
at CR of 16, IP of 250 bar and IT of 21 °bTDC. Addition of DEE to SVO
with diesel reduced the smoke opacity otherwise smoke opacity was
slightly higher for vegetable oil blends without DEE [5]. Advanced IT
reduces the ignition delay and leads to accumulation of less fuel thus
increases the smoke opacity [22]. The maximum smoke opacity of has
been measured at 250 bar IP and 18 CR in F(2) as 59.6% with 21°bTDC
IT which is 13.09% higher than that of neat diesel. The interaction of
low reactivity fuel addition with diesel and also injection timing had a
considerable effect on the opacity [14,17]. The lower smoke opacity for
F(2) has been recorded as 51.5% at 16 CR, 250 bar IP with 21 °bTDC of
IT. The minimum smoke opacity for neat diesel is observed as 50.6% at
18 CR, 230 bar IP and 21 °bTDC IT. The complete combustion could be
the reasons for lower smoke opacity [20]. Due to incomplete
Fig. 7. Oxides of nitrogen emissions for F(1) fuel.
292
Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297
combustion, bael oil fuels emit higher smoke opacity when compared to
neat diesel and it has been reduced by increasing compression ratio and
injection pressure [26]. The developed regression equations for smoke
opacity for the test fuels using the second order response surface models
that includes quadratic terms, interaction terms and linear terms of the
three input factors i.e., CR, IP and IT (Tables 9 and 10). DoE has showed
that the predicted smoke opacity model with 86% significant con-
fidence and they are given in Eqs. (19)–(21) below,
F(0) – Diesel
Opacity (%) = −119−2.458 × IP + 15.19 × IT + 33.1 × CR
+ 0.003431 × IP × IP−0.3194 × IT × IT
−1.094 × CR × CR + 0.01417 × IP × IT
+ 0.0308 × IP × CR−0.163 × IT × CR (19)
F(1) – Diesel/bael oil/DEE
Opacity (%) = −46.6−0.281 × IP + 19.16 × IT −11.15 × CR
−0.000286 × IP × IP−0.1828 × IT × IT
+ 0.507 × CR × CR−0.00667 × IP × IT
+ 0.03292 × IP × CR−0.5458 × IT × CR (20)
F(2) – Diesel/bael oil/DEE
Opacity (%) = −271−0.004 × IP + 9.96 × IT + 23.3 × CR
−0.00338 × IP × IP + 0.0504 × IT × IT −0.602 × CR × CR
−0.02183 × IP × IT + 0.0383 × IP × CR−0.428 × IT × CR
(21)
3.8. Optimization
There is a significant correlation between BTE, BSFC, HC, CO, NOx
and opacity. Therefore, it is essential to optimize the input parameters
like CR, IP and IT when the biofuels are added to diesel with the aim of
minimizing BSFC and exhaust emissions. Based on the objective stated
above, the criteria of optimization for the response with their lower and
M. Krishnamoorthi et al.
Fig. 8. Oxides of nitrogen emissions for F(2) fuel.
upper limits, importance, and weight used have been shown in
Table 11. The weight ranges from 0.1 to 10. The weight greater than 1
gives more importance to the objective while a weight less than 1 gives
less importance [21]. The relative significance of the parameters differs
among each other. In this optimization process, more importance has
been given to the BSFC, NOx and smoke opacity.
Three solutions for the three test fuels have been presented Table 12
as per the criteria of optimization developed using desirability ap-
proach by the minitab’17 software. Higher desirability solutions are
preferred which are nearer to the set criteria [17]. From these solutions,
the fuel blend F(0) has been found to have optimized running condition
of 18 CR, 21 °bTDC IT with 250 bar IP, which has the maximum de-
sirability of 61.6%. Table 12 shows that the fuel F(2) and F(3) have
optimization criteria.
Graphical optimization shows the feasible response area values in
the factor space that fit the criteria of optimization [21]. The developed
regression models of BTE, BSFC, CO, NOx, HC and smoke obtained by
superimposing the contours of all the responses surfaces for fuel F(1)
and F(2) have been represented in Figs. 13 and 14. The contour plots
with upper and lower response line (small range of optimization values
from Table 12) signifies their effects on the output responses with re-
spect to input parameters i.e., CR, IP and IT.
3.9. Validation
Confirmatory experiments have been done to validate the solutions
obtained using desirability approach. Three trails of experiments have
been taken and averaged at the optimum factor levels [14]. Table 13
presents the results of confirmatory experiments which are compared
with the predicted values from RSM models [26]. The percentages of
error in predicting the optimization parameters like BTE, BSFC, CO,
NOx, HC, and opacity are sorted. The optimization models developed
by RSM for the BSFC, CO, NOx, HC and opacity are found to be suffi-
cient to explain the impact of compression ratio and injection systems
for the test fuels and the error in prediction has been found to be within
4.5% [21].
Table 14 shows the output parameters for test fuels F(1) and F(2) at
optimum factor levels obtained by the desirability approach which are
compared to neat diesel operation. For fuel F(1), the BSFC, BTE, NOx
Fig. 9. Hydrocarbon emission for F(1) fuel.
293
Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297
and CO are 11.2%, 3.03%, 0.66% and 2.43% higher when compared to
that of neat diesel respectively as shown in Table 14. For fuel F(2), the
BSFC, NOx, CO and HC are 11.3%, 1.04%, 19.1% and 7.5% higher
when compared to that of neat diesel respectively.
3.10. Average heat release rate (HRR)
Fig. 15 represents the average heat release rate (HRR) as a function
of crank angle degree (-10 and 50° with reference to TDC). Advanced
injection timing reduces the combustion process rate which stretches
the combustion duration [32]. HRR has been determined by thermo-
dynamics depending on the data of the recorded cylinder gas pressure
[41]. The HRR has been calculated by the Eq. (22);
dQ γ ⎛ dV ⎞ 1 ⎛ dP ⎞ dQ w
= P + V +
dθ γ −1 ⎝ dθ ⎠ γ −1 ⎝ dθ ⎠ dθ (22)
where dQ is the amount of heat transfer rate (J/deg CA), V is the
dθ
instantaneous volume (m3), P is cylinder pressure (N/m2) of the cy-
linder, γ is ratio of specific heats, θ is crank angle (deg), Q w is the cy-
linder wall heat losses and dQ w is wall heat transfer loss from Eq. (23)
dθ
[3].
dQ w
= hc × A × (Tg−Tw )
dθ (23)
Higher CR increases the HRR due to complete combustion [25]. The
rate of fuel combustion in the initial stage of combustion augments
slightly with the increase in CR [35]. This is due to the combustion of
large fuel quantity during the initial combustion phase due to higher
compression temperature and also the combustion of the vaporized fuel
not yet progressed in the combustion chamber with the existing flame
front [38]. The rate of ignition delay increase with IT become more
evident for lower engine loads compared to peak engine loads [11]. By
increasing the IT of 2° crank angle degree (CAD) led that the HRR has
advanced 3° CAD and the rate of cylinder gas pressure is lower com-
pared to retardation of IT (21°bTDC) [15,17]. From Fig. 15, a decrease
in combustion duration with neat diesel shows that combustion finishes
much quicker compared to blended fuel engine operations [38].
M. Krishnamoorthi et al. Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297

Fig. 10. Hydrocarbon emission for F(2) fuel.

Fig. 11. Smoke opacity for F(1) fuel.

Fig. 12. Smoke opacity for F(2) fuel.

Table 11 3.11. Maximum cylinder gas pressure

Optimization criteria.
Fig. 16 represents the cylinder gas pressure variation Vs crank angle
Parameter (Fuel F1) Limits Weight Importance Criterion
(−20° to 50° reference toward TDC). The pressure rise rate depends on
Lower Upper the fuel combustion during premixed combustion phase is the base for
CI engine [3]. The combustion duration was slightly elevated with
CR 16 18 1 1 In range
lower CR and/or advanced IT [39]. Meanwhile, the difference in
IP (bar) 210 250 1 1 In range
IT (bTDC) 21 25 1 1 In range
combustion duration was negligible at different IP [30,34]. As the CR
BSFC (kg/kW hr) 0.3622 0.4012 1 2 Minimize increases, the ignition delay escalated and retard the combustion phase
BTE (%) 25.318 30.048 1 3 Maximize correspondingly as well as the peak pressure enhanced [36]. By in-
NOx (ppm) 205.812 258.708 1 2 Minimize tensifying IP, the cylinder pressure rate increases during the first stage
CO (%) 0.4107 0.5101 1 2 Minimize
of combustion and the peak pressure occur slightly prior compared to
Opacity (%) 51.4012 57.2008 1 2 Minimize
HC (ppm) 46.8019 64.7010 1 2 Minimize that of lower IP condition [38]. At higher IP, the peak cylinder pressure
reduces due to longer ignition delay and moving the process of com-
bustion towards the expansion stroke [31]. The lower injection pressure

Table 12
Predicted solutions from desirability approach closer to optimization criteria.

S.No CR IP IT Fuel BTE BSFC CO NOx HC Opacity Composite Desirability

bar bTDC (%) kg/kW hr % ppm ppm % (%)

1 18 250 21 F(0) 29.73 0.3634 0.45 250 48.5 52.01 61.68

2 17.9 234.2 25 F(1) 29.41 0.3905 0.41 240 47.7 54.20 59.36
3 18 250 25 F(2) 28.85 0.4151 0.45 239 49.7 55.54 56.83

294
M. Krishnamoorthi et al. Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297

Fig. 13. Overlaid plots for F(1) fuel.

Fig. 14. Overlaid plots for F(2) fuel.

Table 13
Confirmatory test results at 80 percent engine load and 1500 rpm engine speed with percentage error.

S. No CR IP IT Fuel BTE BSFC CO NOx HC Opacity

% kg/kW h % ppm ppm %

1 17.9 234.2 25 F(1) Actual 29.06 0.4003 0.42 241.7 48.7 53.16
%Error −2.43 2.5133 2.43 0.571 2.26 −1.912
2 18 250 25 F(2) Actual 28.04 0.4201 0.47 240.3 52.0 54.30
%Error −2.91 1.2522 4.44 0.223 4.48 −2.233

Table 14
Optimized responses in comparison with baseline diesel operation at 80 percent engine load and 1500 rpm speed.

S. No CR IP IT Fuel BTE BSFC CO NOx HC Opacity

% kg/kW hr % ppm ppm %

1 17.9 234.2 25 F(1) 29.06 0.4003 0.42 241.7 48.7 53.16

F(0) 28.12 0.3598 0.40 240.0 51.0 54.72
2 18 250 25 F(2) 28.04 0.4201 0.47 240.3 52.0 54.30
F(0) 28.36 0.3724 0.38 237.0 48.0 56.20

contributed to auto-ignition delay, hence the main combustion stage
shifts towards the expansion stroke [42]. Maximum cylinder gas pres-
sure depends on the combustion in premixed stage [3]. This short
combustion phase depends on mixing of air and fuel, fuel type, engine
load and equivalence ratio [32].
3.12. Maximum cylinder gas temperature
Fig. 17 specifies the average maximum cylinder gas temperature Vs
the crank angle (-20° to 90° reference toward TDC). Increasing CR will
escalate in-cylinder gas temperature near the compression stroke and
leads to more brake power [31]. From Fig. 17, it is observed that F(2)
fuel has inferior peak combustion temperature compared to F(0) fuel.
This is the outcome of both earlier initiation of combustion of the liquid
fuel and higher premixed controlled combustion, which occurs due to
the better atomization of F(0) and its lower viscosity [33]. Higher in-
jection pressure augments the spray atomization, escalates the eva-
poration of fuel droplet and reduces the ignition delay period [22]. The
progressive burning takes place due to the minimum ignition delay and
thus peak temperature has been reduced. The reduced maximum
combustion temperature is a reason for reducing NOx emissions [37].
Low-temperature burning is predicted to benefit overall engine

295
M. Krishnamoorthi et al.
Fig. 15. Average heat release rate.
Fig. 16. Maximum cylinder gas pressure.
Fig. 17. Maximum cylinder gas temperature.
efficiency, mainly because of reduced cylinder heat loss and potential of
molecular properties of the expanding combustion gasses from dilute
combustion phase to allow a greater amount of the energy to be ex-
tracted in the expansion stroke [39]. The advancing of injection timing
reduces the maximum cylinder gas temperature by progressive and long
combustion period [42]. However, the thermal efficiency decreased
little bit according to the Carnot theorem that is the efficiency based on
the temperature limits [40].
4. Conclusion
In this study, the statistical and experimental investigation has been
carried out with bael oil/diesel/DEE blended fuels and the analysis of
combined influences of injection timing, compression ratio and injec-
tion pressure on the engine performance and emissions have been done.
The experiments were conducted as per the factorial design matrix and
the response surface methodology has been united with the desirability
296
Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297
approach to model, predict, and optimize the input response data. The
conclusions drawn from the investigation are as follow;
• The regression equations have been developed for performance in-
dicators like BTE, BSFC and emission indicators like CO, NOx, HC
and smoke opacity were observed to be statistically significant.
• Augmented BTE has been recorded for the effects of injection
pressure and compression ratio. The maximum BTE has been ob-
served for F(1) at IP of 230 bar, CR18 and IT of 23 °bTDC IT. At
injection pressure from 240 to 250 bar, the magnitude of BSFC re-
duction was reduced.
• Fall on the scale of CO and HC emissions have been recorded at the
compression ratio ranges from 16.5 to 17.5. The minimum CO
emission of about 0.41% has been observed in F(1) as at 230 bar IP,
18 CR and 25 °bTDC IT which is 8.8% lower than that of neat diesel.
The minimum HC emission of about 46.7 ppm has been found for F
(1) fuel at 250 bar IP, 18 CR with 25 °bTDC IP. However, the results
were not favorable when the concentration of vegetable oil is higher
in the test fuel blend.
• Minimum NOx emission concentration has been recorded for neat
diesel as 208 ppm at IP of 250 bar, CR of 16 and IT of 21 °bTDC,
meanwhile the minimum NOx level has been found as 205.7 ppm for
F(1) fuel at IP of 250 bar, CR of 16 and IT of 25 °bTDC at which the
neat diesel shows 220.3 ppm of NOx. Addition of DEE reduces the
peak combustion temperature which aids the reduction of NOx
emissions.
• Smoke opacity is favorable at standard injection timing and higher
injection pressure. The addition of DEE enhances the combustion
process contributed to lower smoke intensity. The minimum smoke
opacity of about 50.6% has been recorded for neat diesel at 230 bar
IP, 18 CR and 21 °bTDC IT.
• In the optimization process, BSFC, CO, NOx, HC and opacity were
preferred for a desirable response for minimization. The solutions
are nearer to the optimization criteria which were acquired from the
desirability approach.
• Through confirmatory experiments, the desirability approach has
been validated for the optimized solutions. From the results of RSM,
the error in prediction has been observed to be less than 5%.
The superior performance and restrained exhaust emissions have
been obtained by organizing CR, IP and IT while using a renewable fuel
blend from aegle marmoles. RSM and desirability approach has been
effectively utilized to uncover the optimum factor levels for the diesel
engine powered with bael oil/diesel/DEE blends.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful for the support of the organization of
Government College of Technology, Coimbatore for facilitating the re-
search work.
References
[1] Mohamed Shameer P, Ramesh K. Assessment on the consequences of injection
timing and injection pressure on combustion characteristics of sustainable biodiesel
fuelled engine. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;81:45–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2017.07.048.
[2] Bruno Alessandro D, Bidini Gianni, Zampilli Mauro, Laranci Paolo, Bartocci Pietro,
Fantozzi Francesco. Straight and waste vegetable oil in engines: review and ex-
perimental measurement of emissions, fuel consumption and injector fouling on a
turbocharged commercial engine. Fuel 2016;182:198–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.fuel.2016.05.075.
[3] Krishnamoorthi M, Malayalamurthi R. Experimental investigation on performance,
emission behavior and exergy analysis of a variable compression ratio engine fueled
with diesel- aegle-marmoles oil-diethyl ether blends. Energy 2017;128:312–28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.038.
[4] Ramkumar S, Kirubakaran V. Biodiesel from vegetable oil as alternate fuel for CI
engine and feasibility study of thermal cracking: a critical review. Energy Convers
Manage 2016;118:155–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.03.071.
M. Krishnamoorthi et al.
[5] Rakopouos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG, Papagiannakis RG, Kyritsis DC.
Influence of properties of various common biofuels on the combustion and emission
characteristics of high-speed DI diesel engine: vegetable oil, biodiesel, ethanol, n-
butanol, diethyl ether. Energy 2014;73:354–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2014.06.032.
[6] Corsini A, Marchegiani A, Rispoli F, Sciulli F, Venturini P. Vegetable oils as fuels in
diesel engine. Engine performance and emissions. Energy Procedia 2015;81:942–9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.12.151.
[7] Ghadikolaei Meisam Ahmadi. Effect of alcohol blend and fumigation on regulated
and unregulated emissions of CI engines – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;57:1440–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.128.
[8] Rajesh Kumar B, Saravanan S. Use of higher alcohol biofuels in diesel engines: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;60:84–115http://dx.http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2016.01.085.
[9] Garrain Daniel, Herrera Isreal, Lago Carmen, Lechon Yolanda, Saez Rosa.
Renewable diesel fuel from processing of vegetable oil in hydro treatment units:
theoretical compliance with European directive 2009/28/EC and ongoing projects
in Spain. Smart Grid Renewable Energy 2010;1(2):70–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.
4236/sgre.2010.12011.
[10] Leenus Jesu Martin M, Edwin Geo V, Kingsly Jeba Singh D, Nagalingam B.
Comparative analysis of different methods to improve the performance of cotton
seed oil fuelled diesel engine. Fuel 2012;102:372–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2012.06.049.
[11] Emberger Peter, Hebecker Dietrich, Pickle Peter, Remmele Edgar, Thuneke Klaus.
Ignition and combustion behavior of vegetable oils after injection in a constant
volume combustion chamber. Biomass Bioenergy 2015;78:48–61. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.04.009.
[12] Atmanli Alpaslan, Ileri Erol, Yokel Bedri. Experimental investigation of engine
performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fueled with diesel-n-butanol-
vegetable oil blends. Energy Convers Manage 2014;81:312–21. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2014.02.049.
[13] Sidibe SS, Blin J, Vaitilingom G, Azoumah Y. Use of crude filtered vegetable oil as a
fuel in diesel engines state of the art: literature review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2010;14(9):2748–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.06.018.
[14] Pandian M, Sivapirakasam SP, Udayakumar M. Investigation on the effect of in-
jection system parameters on performance and emission characteristics of a twin
cylinder CI direct injection engine fuelled with pongamia biodiesel-diesel blend
using RSM. Appl Energy 2011;88(8):2663–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2011.01.069.
[15] Sivaramakrishnan K, Ravikumar P. Optimization of operational parameters on
performance and emissions of a diesel engine using biodiesel. Int J Environ Sci
Technol 2014;11(4):949–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13762-013-0273-5.
[16] Raheman H, Phadatare AG. Diesel engine emissions and performance from blends
of karanja methyl ester and diesel. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;27(4):393–7. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.03.002.
[17] Jagannath Hirkude B, Atul Padalkar S. Performance optimization of CI engine
fuelled with waste fried oil methyl ester- diesel blend using response surface
methodology. Fuel 2014;119:266–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.11.
039.
[18] Mohamed Shameer P, Ramesh K, Sakthivel R, Purnachandran R. Effect of fuel in-
jection parameters on emission characteristics of diesel engines operating on var-
ious biofuels: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:1267–81. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.117.
[19] Sivalakshmi S, Balusamy T. Effect of biodiesel and its blends with diethyl ether on
the combustion, performance and emissions from a diesel engine. Fuel
2013;106:106–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.12.033.
[20] Atmanli Alpaslan, Illeri Erol, Yilmaz Nadir. Optimization of diesel-butanol-vege-
table oil blend ratios based on engine operating parameters. Energy
2016;96:569–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.091.
[21] Mohamed Shameer P, Ramesh K. Influence of antioxidants on fuel stability of
Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel and RSM-based optimization of engine char-
acteristics at varying injection timing and compression ratio. J Brazil Soc Mech Sci
Technol 2017;39(11):4251–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40430-017-0884-8.
[22] Datta Bharadwaz Y, Govinda Rao B, Dharma Rao V, Anusha C. Improvement of
biodiesel methanol blends performance in a variable compression ratio engine using
response surface methodology. Alexandria Eng J 2016;55(2):1201–9. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.04.006.
[23] Abuhabaya Abdullah, Fieldhouse John, Brown David. The effects of using biodiesel
on CI (compression ignition) engine and optimization of its production by using
response surface methodology. Energy 2013;59:56–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2013.06.056.
297
Fuel 221 (2018) 283–297
[24] Hirkude Jagannath, Padalkar Atul, Vedartham Deepa. Investigations on the effect of
waste fried oil methyl ester blends and load on performance and smoke opacity of
diesel of diesel engine using response surface methodology. Energy Procedia
2014;54:606–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.302.
[25] Atmanli Alpaslan, Yokel Bedri, Ileri Erol, Karaoglan Deniz. Response surface
methodology based optimization of diesel-n-butanol-cotton oil ternary blend ratios
to improve engine performance and exhaust emission characteristics. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;90:383–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.
11.029.
[26] Dhingra Sunil, Bhushan Gian, Kumar Dubey Kashyap. Multi objective optimization
of combustion, performance and emission parameters in a jatropha biodiesel engine
using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II. Front Mech Eng
2014;9(1):81–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11465-014-0287-9.
[27] Dhanamurugan A, Subramanian R. Performance of single cylinder diesel engine
with bael seed biodiesel. Appl Mech Mater 2014;592–594:1714–8. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.592-594.1714.
[28] Kariyappa Katagi S, Ravindra Munnolli S, Kallappa Hosamani M. Unique occur-
rence of unusual fatty acid in the seed oil of aegle marmelos Corre: screening the
rich source of seed oil for bio-energy production. Appl Energy
2011;88(5):1797–802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.12.010.
[29] Lahane Subhash, Subramanian KA. Impact of nozzle holes configuration on fuel
spray, wall impingement and NOx emission of a diesel engine for biodiesel-diesel
blend (B20). Appl Therm Eng 2014;64(1–2):307–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2013.12.048.
[30] Wamankar Arun Kumar, Satapathy Ashok Kumar, Murugan S. Experimental in-
vestigation of the effect of compression ratio, injection timing and pressure in a DI
diesel engine running on carbon black-water-diesel emulsion. Energy
2015;93(1):511–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.068.
[31] Hellier Paul, Ladommatos Nicos, Yusaf Talal. The influence of straight vegetable oil
fatty acid composition on compression ignition combustion and emissions. Fuel
2015;143:131–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.11.021.
[32] Qi DH, Bae C, Feng YM, Jia CC, Bian YZ. Preparation, characterization, engine
combustion and emission characteristics of rapeseed oil based hybrid fuels.
Renewable Energy 2013;60:98–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.05.
008.
[33] Karabektas Murat, Ergen Gokhan, Hosoz Murat. The effects of using diethyl ether as
additive on the performance and emission of a diesel engine fuelled with CNG. Fuel
2014;115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.12.062. 885-860.
[34] Panneerselvam N, Murugan A, Vijayakumar C, Kumaravel A, Subramaniam D,
Avinash A. Effects of injection timing on bio-fuels fuelled engine characteristics-an
overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:17–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.04.157.
[35] Pandey Rajesh Kumar, Rehman A, Sarviya RM. Impact of alternative fuel properties
on fuel spray behavior and atomization. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
2012;16(3):1762–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.010.
[36] Palash SM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Masum BM, Sanjid A, Abedin MJ. State of the
art of NOx mitigation technologies and their effect on the performance and emission
characteristics of biodiesel – fueled compression ignition engines. Energy Convers
Manage 2013;76:400–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.07.059.
[37] Mohamed Shameer P, Ramesh K. Study on clean technology-assisted combustion
behavior and NOx emission using thermal imager for alternate fuel blends. Int J
Environ Sci Technol 2017;14(12):2759–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13762-
017-1353-8.
[38] Saravanan S, Nagarajan G, Sampath S. Combined effect of injection timing, EGR
and injection pressure in NOx control of a stationary diesel engine fuelled with
crude rice bran oil methyl ester. Fuel 2013;104:409–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.fuel.2012.10.0138.
[39] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG, Dimaratos AM. Studying combus-
tion and cyclic irregularity of diethyl ether as supplement fuel in diesel engine. Fuel
2013;109:325–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.01.012.
[40] Chintala V, Subramanian KA. Experimental investigation on effect of different
compression ratios on enhancement of maximum hydrogen energy share in a
compression ignition engine under dual fuel mode. Energy 2015;87:448–62. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.014.
[41] Heywood JB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. New York, USA: McGraw-
Hill; 1988.
[42] Sayin Cenk, Gumus Metin. Impact of compression ratio and injection parameters on
the performance and emissions of a DI diesel engine fueled with biodiesel-blended
diesel fuel. Appl Therm Eng 2011;31:3182–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2011.05.044.