Experimental investigation on diesel engine with diestrolewater micro emulsions

G.R. Kannan, R. Anand

*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli 620 015, Tamilnadu, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 July 2010
Received in revised form
3 December 2010
Accepted 27 December 2010
Available online 1 February 2011
Keywords:
Waste cooking palm oil
Biodiesel
Diestrol
Micro emulsion
Combustion
a b s t r a c t
Experiments were conducted on a single cylinder direct injection diesel engine using diesel, biodiesel
and biodieseledieseleethanol (diestrol) water micro emulsion fuels to investigate the performance,
emission and combustion characteristics of the engine under different load conditions at a constant
speed of 1500 rpm. The results indicated that biodiesel and micro emulsion fuels had a higher brake
specic fuel consumption (BSFC) than that of diesel. A slight improvement in the brake specic energy
consumption (BSEC) was observed for micro emulsion fuels. The brake thermal efciency of biodiesel
and micro emulsion fuels were comparable to that of diesel. The emission characteristics like carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO
2
), unburnt hydrocarbon (UHC), nitric oxide (NO) and smoke emis-
sions for biodiesel and micro emulsion fuels were lower than diesel fuel at all load conditions. The
cylinder gas pressure of micro emulsion fuels was lower than diesel at low loads but it became almost
identical to diesel at medium and full load conditions. The heat release rate for micro emulsion fuels was
higher than biodiesel and diesel fuels for all loads. Biodiesel showed shorter ignition delay for the entire
load range and the longer ignition delay observed for micro emulsion fuels.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The increasing petroleum price and environmental concern due
to global warming has developed the thrust in search of renewable
fuels for diesel engines. Recently, much attention has been paid to
the development of alternative fuels in order to meet the emission
standards and to reduce the dependency on fossil fuel. Especially,
biodiesel and ethanol have been considered as major alternative
fuels, as they are derived from renewable sources. These fuels are
welleoxygenated and therefore have a great potential to reduce
emissions [1e4]. Biodiesel is an oxygenated diesel fuel made from
vegetable and animal fats by conversion of the triglyceride fats into
esters via transesterication [5,6]. Based on the literature survey
conductedonthe effect of biodiesel fuels ondiesel engine emissions,
reduction in HC, CO, smoke and slight increase in NOemissionwere
observed. Increase inNOemissions poses a major impediment tothe
application of biodiesel [7]. Besides biodiesel has some disadvan-
tages such as higher viscosity, higher pour point and lower volatility
compared with diesel. Thus, the poor cold owbehavior of biodiesel
is a barrier to the use of biodiesel in cold weather conditions [8].
Ethanol blendedbiodiesel canprovidehigher oxygencontent but
duetothelower caloric valueandhigher latent heat of vaporization
of ethanol used in the fuel mixture lowers the combustion temper-
ature inside the engine cylinder which results in reduced NO
emission. Further, the oxygen content and cooling effect of ethanol
increase the ignition delay period resulting in proper mixing of fuel
with air which causes complete combustion and thus has the
potential to reduce both NO and PM emissions [9]. Moreover, bio-
dieseleethanol blends have improvedcoldowproperties thanthat
of biodiesel. Inspite of having superior lubricity and environmental
friendly characteristics, biodieseleethanol blend has lower energy
value and cetane number due tothe presence of ethanol. To increase
caloric value and cetane number, a minimal amount of diesel is
added with the biodieseleethanol blends [10]. Based on studies
conducted on NO emission reduction methods, the application of
water injection, use of water emulsied biodiesel, retarding of
ignition timing and exhaust gas recirculation are the most
frequently used techniques to achieve reduction in ame tempera-
ture [11]. Mainly, the emulsication technique is being applied to
reduce nitrogen oxide emissions and to promote the combustion
efciency for fossil fuels [12]. The biodieseledieseleethanol fuel
blend micro emulsions have shown stability well below subzero
temperatures and have equal or superior fuel properties to regular
diesel fuel [13]. Thus, the present study investigates the effect of
biodiesel, biodieseledieseleethanol (diestrol) water micro emul-
sion on DI diesel engine performance, emission and combustion
characteristics. The experimental results obtained were compared
with those of diesel fuel.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 431 2503423; fax: 91 431 2500133.
E-mail address: anandachu@nitt.edu (R. Anand).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ energy
0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2010.12.062
Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Selection of diestrol fuel for micro emulsion
Different proportions of biodiesel, diesel andethanol weremixed
to a homogeneous composition in three neck round bottom ask
using a mechanical stirrer with a stirrer rod of 8 mm diameter and
a blade widthof 80 mmat a constant stirring speedof 1000 rpm. The
mixing process was carried out at an ambient temperature of 30

C
for about 30 min. Each fuel was varied from 0 to 100% by volume in
steps of 10% increments and all 36 possible combinations were
prepared. As the three fuel mixture was prepared with three
different constituents, it was named as diestrol. Stability test was
carried out for all the diestrol fuels which were kept in a glass vial
with a stopper for four weeks at an ambient temperature of 30

C.
Based onstability test, some fuels showed immiscibility as indicated
by the diamond mark in the diestrol plot as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Square and plus marked fuels represent low caloric value and
colour change respectively. Star marked diestrol fuels were stable
and had a higher caloric value. Among the 36 test fuels, onlyeleven
diestrol fuels were selected on the basis of good miscibility and
caloric value. The selected diestrol fuel was added with different
proportions of water and Span 80 in order to determine the stability
of diestrolewater emulsions as shown in Table 1. Among the tested
fuels, sample 14 and 18 showed good miscibility and it was selected
for further experimental investigation.
2.2. Micro emulsion preparation
Micro emulsion of fuel blends were prepared by adding correct
quantity of surfactant, co surfactant and water to the fuel. Biodiesel
derived from waste cooking palm oil by alkali catalyzed trans-
esterication was used in this experiment [14]. Span 80 (Sorbitan
monooleate) was used as surfactant and it had an HLB value of 4.7
and specic gravity of 1. The purpose of surfactant used in the micro
emulsion fuel is to reduce the fuel and water supercial tension.
Addition of ethanol acts as co surfactant to improve the stability of
the micro emulsion [15,16] and to improve cold ow properties.
Since ethanol has lower energy content and cetane number, the
percentage of ethanol added to the micro emulsion fuels was
restricted to 20% by volume to avoid combustion problems. The
water quantity dispersed in the biodiesel is of great signicance as
it causes the micro explosion which results in the reduction of
harmful emissions [17,18]. In order to prepare the diestrol micro
emulsion fuels, a known quantity of 10e20% by volume of ethanol,
10e60% by volume of diesel were added to a 30e80% by volume of
biodiesel in three neck round bottom ask. Three neck round
bottomask with a capacity of 2000 ml was employed for every 1 L
of diestrol fuel preparation using a magnetic stirrer.
As water addition decreases the lower heating value (LHV) of
the micro emulsion fuel and increases the ignition delay in
a compression ignition engine, water addition was limited
between 0.5 and 2 mL [18]. According to the quantity of water
taken, the amount of surfactant Span 80 was chosen between 1
and 4 g. Then, the known quantity of (1e4 g) Span 80 and water
(0.5e2 mL) was added one by one to the diestrol fuel mixture
while stirring. The stirring process was carried out at an ambient
temperature of 30

C for 30 min. Then, the diestrol micro emulsion
fuels were kept in the glass bottle with a stopper for observing the
physical appearance. All the diestrol micro emulsion fuels were
Diesel 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ethanol
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Biodiesel
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Color change
Good miscibility and calorific value
Low calorific value
Imiscibility
Fig. 1. Ternary diagram of diestrol fuel for stability analysis.
Table 1
Effect of various proportions of water and surfactant on selected diestrol micro emulsion fuels.
Sample no Diestrol Biodiesel
(B100) (ml)
Diesel (ml) Ethanol (ml) Span 80 (g) Water (ml) Appearance
1 B30D50E20M 30 50 20 3 0.5 Separation
2 B40D40E20M 40 40 20 4 0.5 Separation
3 B50D30E20M 50 30 20 3 0.5 Separation
4 B30D60E10M 30 60 10 4 0.5 Separation
5 B40D50E10M 40 50 10 3 1 Separation
6 B50D40E10M 50 40 10 4 0.5 Separation
7 B60D30E10M 60 30 10 2 0.5 Separation
8 B70D20E10M 70 20 10 4 0.5 Separation
9 B70D20E10M 70 20 10 3 1 Separation
10 B80D10E10M 80 10 10 4 0.5 Separation
11 B80D10E10M 80 10 10 3 2 Separation
12 B60D20E20M 60 20 20 4 1 Separation
13 B60D20E20M 60 20 20 4 2 Separation
14 B60D20E20M 60 20 20 4 0.5 Clear solution
15 B60D20E20M 60 20 20 3 0.5 Separation
16 B60D20E20M 60 20 20 2 0.5 Separation
17 B60D20E20M 60 20 20 1 0.5 Separation
18 B70D10E20M 70 10 20 4 0.5 Clear solution
19 B70D10E20M 70 10 20 3 0.5 Separation
20 B70D10E20M 70 10 20 2 0.5 Separation
21 B70D10E20M 70 10 20 4 2 Separation
G.R. Kannan, R. Anand / Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687 1681
kept stationary for four weeks to observe the stability. The
compositions of the micro emulsions fuel prepared are presented
in Table 1. Based on the stability study, 4 g of Span 80 and 0.5 ml of
water were found to be suitable for micro emulsion fuel prepa-
ration as it resulted in a clear solution and better caloric value of
the fuel blends (sample 14 and 18).
The properties of diesel, biodiesel and diestrol micro emulsion
fuels were determined at the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Trichy,
India and are shown in Table 2. It was observed that the kinematic
viscosity of micro emulsion fuels (B60D20E20M) at 40

C was 1.35
times less than that of biodiesel at the same temperature. Reduc-
tion in the density of B60D20E10M and B70D10E20M micro
emulsion fuels was also observed. This is due to the addition of
ethanol and diesel into biodiesel. The diestrol micro emulsion fuel
(B60D20E20M) had caloric value that was 90.13% of diesel caloric
value. It can be seen that the ash point of all micro emulsion fuels
was found to be lower than that of biodiesel and diesel. The ash
point of a diestrol micro emulsion fuels is mainly determined by
ethanol which is highly ammable. Thus, the storage, handling and
transportation of diestrol must be carried out with adequate safety
procedures in order to avoid any explosion.
3. Experimental setup and measurements
The experimental investigation was carried out on a single
cylinder four stroke DI diesel engine for different load from 0% to
100% with increments of 25% along with 10% over load at
a constant speed of 1500 rpm. The engine specications are given
in Table 3. The schematic diagram of the experimental setup is
shown in Fig. 2. A standard calibrated burette and a digital stop-
watch were employed for the fuel ow measurements. The ow
rate of air was measured using an orice plate. The orice plate
causes a pressure drop which varies with the ow rate. This
pressure drop was measured by means of an inclined manometer.
The test engine used was directly coupled with a Kirloskar made
electrical alternator for making power measurements. An AVL
DIGAS 444 ve gas analyzer was used to measure the concentra-
tion of CO, CO
2
, NO, and O
2
present in the exhaust gas. The
concentrations of HC and NO are expressed in ppm whereas those
of CO, CO
2
, and O
2
are expressed in as a percentage volume. Smoke
emission was measured using AVL 437 smoke meter and it is
Table 2
Fuel properties of micro emulsion fuel comparison with biodiesel and diesel.
Property Diesel B100 B70D10E20M B60D20E20M ASTM
standard
Density (kg/m3)
at 27

C
828.1 866.6 845.83 841.98 ASTM D1298
Kinematic
viscosity (cSt)
(cSt) at 40

C
2.41 4.73 3.75 3.52 ASTM D445
Cloud point (oC) 0 13 10 10 ASTM D2500
Pour point (

C) 6 9 6 6 ASTM D97
Flash point (

C) 49 170 17.3 16.5 ASTM D93

Fire point (

C) 55 190 e e ASTM D93

Caloric value
(MJ/kg)
42.11 38.03 37.18 37.95 ASTM D240
Table 3
Engine specications.
Engine parameter Specication
Engine make TV1-KIRLOSKAR
Rated brake power 5.2 kW
Speed 1500 rpm
Number of cylinder 1
Method of cooling Water cooled
Bore Stroke 87.5 mm 110 mm
Type of ignition CI
Compression ratio 17.5:1
Fuel injection Solid/direct injection
Fuel injection system Pump in line nozzle injection system
Injection opening pressure 220 bar
Injection timing 23

bTDC
Nozzle hole diameter and number 0.3 mm and 3
Fuel spray angle 120

Piston bowl Hemispherical

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the engine setup.
G.R. Kannan, R. Anand / Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687 1682
expressed in percentage opacity. The cylinder pressure was mea-
sured using a KISTLER quartz (piezoeelectric) transducer in
conjunction with a KISTLER charge amplier with the help of data
acquisition system. Exhaust temperature, cooling water inlet and
outlet temperatures were measured using Ketype thermocouples.
3.1. Error analysis
Errors and uncertainties in the experiments may occur due to
selection of instrument, working condition, calibration, environ-
ment, observation and method of conduct of the test [19,20].
Uncertainty analysis was necessary to prove the accuracy of the
experiments. The percentage uncertainties of various parameters
like brake power, total fuel consumption, brake specic fuel
consumption, brake specic energy consumption and brake
thermal efciency were determined using the roots sum square
method [21]. The percentage uncertainty of various instruments
used in the experimental investigation and the error analysis of the
results are shown in Table 4.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Performance characteristics
The variation of brake specic fuel consumption (BSFC) with
respect to BMEP for different test fuels is shown in Fig. 3. The BSFC
of all the test fuels decrease with increasing engine loads. However,
the biodiesel and micro emulsion fuel have higher BSFC than diesel
fuel. The BSFC for biodiesel (B100) is 15.9% higher than that of diesel
fuel at 100% load condition. The micro emulsion fuels show higher
BSFC than biodiesel. At 100% load condition, micro emulsion fuels
(B70D10E20M) had the highest BSFC value of 0.33 kg/kWh whereas
it was 0.28 kg/kWh and 0.32 kg/kWh for diesel and biodiesel
respectively. This is due to the lower energy content of biodiesel
and micro emulsion fuels when compared to diesel [22].
BSEC is a more relevant parameter than BSFC because it is
independent of the fuel. Hence, it is more convenient to compare
energy consumption rather than fuel consumption. BSEC is the
energy input required to develop unit power. From Fig. 4, it is
evident that biodiesel has a BSEC, 4.8% more than that of diesel fuel
while micro emulsion fuels show a slight improvement in BSEC
than biodiesel fuel. At 100% condition, the BSEC for micro emulsion
fuel (B60D20E20M) showed the least value of 12.12 MJ/kWh, which
is 4.2% higher than that of diesel. The reduction in BSEC of micro
emulsion fuels is mainly because of ethanol addition in the fuel that
leads to the improvement in viscosity of mixture. It causes proper
vaporization and atomization which resulted in better combustion.
Apart from this, addition of water creates further atomization
which improves the mixing process of fuel [23,24].
The comparison between the brake thermal efciency of
different test fuels with varying load is illustrated in Fig. 5. The
brake thermal efciency of diesel fuel is higher among the tested
fuels under all load conditions. Biodiesel and the micro emulsion
fuels show lower efciency than diesel fuel up to 75% load condi-
tion. A signicant improvement in the thermal efciency of bio-
diesel and B60D20E20M fuel are observed at higher engine loads.
Biodiesel and B60D20E20M exhibit almost the same value of
thermal efciency (30.8%), which is closer to that of diesel (30.9%)
at 100% load condition. The slight variations in the thermal ef-
ciency of the fuel are mainly due to the lower caloric value of
biodiesel and micro emulsion fuels compared to diesel.
Table 4
Percentage uncertainties of various instruments.
Instrument Measuring
range
Accuracy Percentage
uncertainties
AVL DiGAS 444 ve gas analyzer
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0e10% vol < 0.6% vol: 0.03% vol > 0.6% vol: 5% 0.3
Carbon dioxide (CO
2
) 0e20% vol < 10% vol: 0.5% vol > 10% vol: 5% vol 0.2
Hydrocarbon (HC) 0e20000 ppm vol < 200 ppm vol: 10 ppm vol > 200 ppm vol: 5% 0.2
Oxygen (O
2
) 0e22% vol < 2% vol: 0.1% vol 2% vol: 5% vol 0.3
Nitric oxide (NO) 0e5000 ppm vol < 500 ppm vol: 50 ppm vol 500 ppm vol: 10% 0.2
AVL 437 smoke meter
Smoke opacity 0e100% 1% 1
Exhaust gas temperature 0e1250

C 1

C 0.2
Burette for fuel measurement e 0.1cc 1
Digital stopwatch e 0.2 s 0.2
Manometer e 1 mm 2
Pressure transducer 0e100 bar 1 bar 0.1
Crank angle encoder e 1

0.2
Engine characteristics
Brake power (kW) e e 1.4
Total fuel consumption (kg/h) e e 1
Brake specic fuel consumption (kg/kWh) e e 1.7
Brake specic energy consumption (kJ/kWh) e e 1.7
Brake thermal efciency (%) e e 0.05
Fig. 3. Brake specic fuel consumption for test fuels.
G.R. Kannan, R. Anand / Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687 1683
4.2. Emission characteristics
The carbon monoxide (CO) emission of the biodiesel and all
micro emulsion fuels increases with increasing load condition is
shown in Fig. 6. COemissions in micro emulsion fuels increase with
load more than of biodiesel. But however, it falls exactly on the
same line with the diesel fuel COemission at 100% load condition. It
is observed that diesel fuel emits 0.3% CO at maximum load
condition whereas with biodiesel it is 0.12%. The reduction in CO
emission of biodiesel is mainly due to the oxygen content of bio-
diesel which enhances the complete combustion in the cylinder
[25]. CO emission of micro emulsion fuels is higher than that of
biodiesel but slightly lesser than that of diesel value. This is because
of a thickened quench layer created due to the cooling effect of
ethanol and water present in the diestrol micro emulsion fuel
because of its high latent heat of vaporization. The higher latent
heat of vaporization could be the reason for the poor oxidation rate
of CO due to lower gas temperature which reduces the combustion
efciency and increases the CO emission [26].
The variation of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emission with BMEP is
shown in Fig. 7. The emission of CO
2
is expected to increase with
increasing load. Under all engine loads the CO
2
emission of diesel
fuel is higher than that of biodiesel and all micro emulsion fuels.
Biodiesel exhibits 17% CO
2
lower emission than that of diesel at
100% load condition. This is mainly due to the lower carbon content
of biodiesel in an equal volume of fuel consumed at the same load
[20]. All micro emulsion fuels show higher CO
2
emission than
biodiesel. It can be explained that the higher oxygen content and
increasing ignition delay period of micro emulsion fuels lead to
complete combustion.
The comparison between the test results of unburnt hydro-
carbon (UHC) for different fuels is shown in Fig. 8. The lowest UHC
emission is recorded for biodiesel as 24 ppm at BMEP of 6.29 bar.
This is due to the higher oxygen content and cetane number of
biodiesel. This causes higher combustion efciency and decreases
the amount of UHC emission [27]. From Fig. 8, it can be observed
that all the micro emulsion fuels have higher UHC emission than
biodiesel under all load conditions. This is due to the quench layer
of unburned ethanol present in combustion chamber and the high
latent heat of vaporization of water that results in low gas
temperature environment. This low gas temperature environment
inside the cylinder makes it difcult for the micro emulsion fuels to
evaporate which resulted in higher UHC emission [28e30].
The smoke emission for different fuels is shown in Fig. 9. The
smoke emissionof biodiesel falls exactlyinlinewiththat of diesel up
to medium load conditions. At 100% load condition, the smoke
emission of biodiesel is 7.2% lower than diesel, which is due to the
high oxygencontent and lowsulfur content of biodiesel. The oxygen
content of biodiesel provides certain advantages like post ame
oxidation and increases the ame speed during the air fuel inter-
actions, particularly in the fuelerich region. Indeed, it reveals the
presence of the oxygen content of biodiesel which enhances the
hydrocarbonoxidation[14]. The micro emulsionfuels exhibit smoke
reductionwhen compared to biodiesel and diesel fuel. FromFig. 9, it
can be observed that the smoke emission with B70D10E20M micro
emulsionfuel gave avalue that 10.5%thandiesel and3.3%lower than
biodiesel at full load condition. This can be explained by the higher
oxygen content of micro emulsion fuels. Further, the cooling of fuel
air mixture due to the presence of ethanol and water increases the
Fig. 4. Brake specic energy consumption for test fuels.
Fig. 6. Effect of BMEP on CO emission for test fuels.
Fig. 5. Comparison of brake thermal efciency with BMEP for test fuels. Fig. 7. Comparison of BMEP and CO
2
emission of test fuels.
G.R. Kannan, R. Anand / Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687 1684
ignition delay which resulted in better mixing of fuel with air that
leads to complete combustion [28].
The variations of NO emission with BMEP are shown in Fig. 10.
NO emission increases with the increasing load for all tested fuels.
The micro emulsion fuels show lower NO emission compared to
biodiesel. At a maximum load condition, the NO emission with
diesel is 578 ppm whereas with biodiesel it is 485 ppm. This is
mainly due to the lower iodine value (i.e., 57.3) of the biodiesel
[31,32]. It was observed that micro emulsion fuels gave NO emis-
sion that were 19.72% lower than diesel and4.32% lower than bio-
diesel at maximum load condition. It can be explained that the
higher latent heat of vaporization of ethanol and water decreases
the cylinder temperature resulting in reduced NO emission [33].
4.3. Combustion characteristics
The comparison of cylinder gas pressure for diesel, biodiesel and
micro emulsion fuels at 100% load condition is shown in Fig. 11. The
cylinder gas pressure is higher for the micro emulsion fuels;
especially B70D10E20M micro emulsion shows a higher value of
73.73 bar at 374.8

CA. This is due to the long ignition delay period
of all micro emulsions which starts the combustion close to TDC.
The maximum cylinder gas pressure of 73.51 bar was noted at
367.22

CA for biodiesel which occurs at an earlier crank angle than

micro emulsion fuels. This may be due to the shorter ignition delay
of biodiesel when compared to diesel and micro emulsied fuels.
The cylinder gas peak pressure for different test fuels under
varying load conditions is plotted in Fig. 12. The cylinder gas peak
pressure of test fuels is found to increase with increasing load. At
a low load condition, biodiesel and micro emulsion fuels have
a lower cylinder gas peak pressure than diesel. This may be due to
the poor volatility of biodiesel and the lowtemperature environment
present in the cylinder. At medium and full loads, the cylinder gas
pressure of biodiesel and micro emulsion fuels are higher than that
of diesel because of the oxygen content of biodiesel and the presence
of ethanol and water in diestrol micro emulsion fuels which causes
proper atomization and leads to complete combustion.
Heat release rate (HRR) for different fuels at 100% load condition
is shown in Fig. 13. The heat release rates for micro emulsion fuels
are higher than that of biodiesel and diesel value. It can be seen
that, the heat release rate of diesel is 25.08 J at 372.01

CA whereas
for biodiesel and B70D10E20Mit is 24.7 J at 372.3

CA and 25.16 J at
374.8

CA respectively. It is observed that crank angle corre-
sponding to the maximum heat release rate was smaller for all
micro emulsion fuels. The higher HRR peak for micro emulsion
fuels is mainly due to the addition of ethanol and water which
causes reduction in cetane number and increases the ignition delay
period. Hence, more amount of fuel is available for combustion due
to the increased delay period which increases the heat release rate
at all load conditions.
The variation of ignition delay period for different test fuels is
illustrated in Fig. 14. Ignition delay is the period between the start
of fuel injection into the combustion chamber and the start of
combustion. It was computed by calculating the change in slope of
the pressure crank angle diagram, and from a heat release analysis
of the pressure crank angle data [34]. The ignition delay period
Fig. 8. Variation of UHC emission with BMEP for test fuels.
Fig. 10. Variation of NO emission with BMEP for test fuels.
Fig. 9. Smoke emission for biodiesel, diesel fuel and its blends.
Crank angle ( degree )
320 340 360 380 400 420
)
r
a
b
(
e
r
u
s
s
e
r
p
s
a
g
r
e
d
n
i
l
y
C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Diesel
B100
B70D10E20M
B60D20E20M
Fig. 11. Cylinder gas pressure with crank angle at 100% load condition.
G.R. Kannan, R. Anand / Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687 1685
decreases with increasing load. At a lowload condition, the cylinder
residual gas temperature and wall temperature is lesser, which
causes lower mixture temperature at fuel injection leading to an
increases in ignition delay period. At a high load condition, the gas
temperature is high, which reduces the physical delay. FromFig. 14,
it can be noticed that biodiesel shows shorter ignition delay among
all other test fuels. This is mainly due to the high cetane number of
biodiesel. All micro emulsion fuels have higher ignition delay
period when compared with biodiesel and diesel. At 100% load
condition, the ignition delay period of B60D20E20M is 0.42

CA
higher than diesel. This can be attributed to the lower cetane
number of ethanol, higher latent heat of vaporation of ethanol and
water that increases the ignition delay period.
The variation of combustion duration of diesel, biodiesel and
diestrol micro emulsion fuels under different load condition is
shown in Fig. 15. The difference in crank angle value corresponding
to 5% and 95% of the mass burnt has been considered as the
combustion duration [22]. The combustion duration of all the fuels
increases with increasing load condition due to the accumulation of
more fuel inside the cylinder. At a low engine load condition,
diestrol micro emulsion fuels had longer combustion duration. This
is due to the low temperature environment inside the cylinder that
leads to a longer ignition delay period of the micro emulsion fuels
which in due course will delay the combustion to expansion
process. This results in a poor combustion. At medium and high
load condition, reduction in combustion duration of micro emul-
sion fuels is observed. Faster combustion rate due to high
temperature in premixed and controlled combustion phase of
micro emulsion fuels is the reason for reduction in combustion
duration.
5. Conclusions
The effect of biodiesel, biodieseledieseleethanol (diestrol)
micro emulsion fuels on performance, emission and combustion
characteristics of direct injection diesel engine have been investi-
gated in this study. Based on the experimental results, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1. Though diestrolewater micro emulsion fuels showed higher
BSFC, a slight improvement in BSEC was observed. However,
the brake thermal efciency remained almost the same as that
of diesel fuel.
2. The use of diestrolewater micro emulsion fuels resulted
particularly in lower NO and smoke emissions than in diesel
fuels but there was a slight increase in CO, CO
2
and UHC
emissions when compared to biodiesel.
3. At higher engine loads, an increase in the cylinder gas peak
pressure, heat release rate, ignition delay and combustion
duration for the diestrolewater micro emulsion fuels can be
noted against that of diesel fuel.
The detailed experimental investigation conrms that dies-
trolewater micro emulsion fuels can be used as a suitable alter-
native to diesel without modifying the engine. The scope for further
BMEP ( bar )
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
)
A
C
e
e
r
g
e
d
(
y
a
l
e
d
n
o
i
t
i
n
g
I
0
5
10
15
20
Diesel
B100
B70D10E20M
B60D20E20M
Fig. 14. Ignition delay period with BMEP for different test fuels.
BMEP ( bar )
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
C
y
l
i
n
d
e
r

g
a
s

p
e
a
k

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(

b
a
r

)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Diesel
B100
B70D10E20M
B60D20E20M
Fig. 12. Cylinder gas peak pressure with BMEP for different fuels.
Crank angle ( degree )
320 340 360 380 400 420
)
A
C
e
e
r
g
e
d
/
J
(
e
t
a
r
e
s
a
e
l
e
r
t
a
e
H
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Diesel
B100
B70D10E20M
B60D20E20M
Fig. 13. Heat release rate with crank angles at 100% load condition.
BMEP ( bar )
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
)
A
C
e
e
r
g
e
d
(
n
o
i
t
a
r
u
d
n
o
i
t
s
u
b
m
o
C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Diesel
B100
B70D10E20M
B60D20E20M
Fig. 15. Combustion duration with BMEP for different test fuels.
G.R. Kannan, R. Anand / Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687 1686
development of the diestrolewater micro emulsions fueled engine
will rest on the methods to improve the fuel consumption.
Reduction in BSFC may be achieved by the addition of cetane or
ignition improvers in diestrolewater micro emulsion fuels without
increasing the NO emission. In addition to this, emission control
components like particulate lters and catalytic converters might
be needed to reduce the particulate, unburnt hydrocarbon, carbon
monoxide and NO emissions. The lower ash point of these fuels
calls for safety procedure in their handling. The safety procedure to
be adopted can include tting of ame arrestors on the fuel tank.
Further, the long term durability test of engine will be needed to
conrm that these fuels do not affect the engine durability.
References
[1] Pereira PA, Santos ETS, Ferreira TF, de Andrade JB. Determination of methanol
and ethanol by gas chromatography following air sampling onto orisil
cartridges and their concentrations at urban sites in the three largest cities in
Brazil. Talanta 1999;49:245e52.
[2] Pang X, Mu Y, Yuan J, He H. Carbonyl emission from ethanoleblended gasoline
and biodieseleethanolediesel used in engines. Atmospheric Environment
2008;42:1349e58.
[3] Lapuerta M, Armas O, GarciaeGontreras R. Stability of dieselebioethanol
blends for use in diesel engines. Fuel 2007;86:1351e7.
[4] Shi X, Yu Y, He H, Shuai S, Wang J, Li R. Emission characteristics using methyl
soyateeethanolediesel fuel blends on a diesel engine. Fuel 2005;84:1543e9.
[5] Pang Xiaobing, Shi Xiaoyan, Mu Yujing, He Hong, Shuai Shijin, Chen Hu, et al.
Characteristics of carbonyl compounds emission from a dieseleengine using
biodieseleethanolediesel as fuel. Atmospheric Environment 2006;40:7057e65.
[6] Tsolakis A, Megaritis A, Wyszynski ML, Theinnoi K. Engine performance and
emissions of a diesel engine operating on dieseleRME (rapeseed methyl ester)
blends with EGR (exhaust gas recirculation). Energy 2007;32(11):2072e80.
[7] Lauperta M, Armas O, Jose RF. Effect of biodiesel fuels on diesel engine
emissions. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2008;34(2):198e223.
[8] Qi DH, Chen H, Geng LM, Bian YZH, Ren XCH. Performance and combustion
characteristics of biodieseledieselemethanol blend fuelled engine. Applied
Energy 2010;87:1679e86.
[9] Huang Jinchen, WangYaodong, Li Shuangding, Roskilly Antony P, YuHongdong,
Li Huifen. Experimental investigation on the performance and emissions of
a diesel engine fuelled with ethanolediesel blends. Applied Thermal Engi-
neering 2009;29:2484e90.
[10] McCormick RL, Parish R. Milestone report: technical barriers to the use of
ethanol in diesel fuel. NREL/MPe540e32674. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory; 2001. 1e19.
[11] Fernando S, Hall C, Jha S. NO
x
reduction from biodiesel fuels. Energy Fuels
2006;20:376e82.
[12] Defries TH, Kishan S, Smith MV, Ullman Anthony J. The Texas diesel fuels
project, part 1: development of TxDotespecic test cycles with emphasis on
a route technique for comparing fuel/water emulsions and conventional
diesel fuels. SAE Paper; 2004. No 2004e01e0090.
[13] Fernando S, Hanna M. Development of a novel biofuel blend using etha-
nolebiodieselediesel micro emulsion: EBediesel. Energy Fuels 2004;18
(6):1695e703.
[14] Anand R, Kannan GR, Nagarajan S, Velmathi S. Performance emission and
combustion characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with biodiesel produced
from waste cooking oil. SAE Paper; 2010. No 2010e01e0478.
[15] Lin CY, Lin SA. Effects of emulsication variables on fuel properties of two and
threeephase biodiesel emulsions. Fuel 2007;86(1):210e7.
[16] Wang F, Fang B, Zhang ZQ, Zhang SY, Chen YD. The effect of alkanol chain on
the interfacial composition and thermodynamic properties of diesel oil
microeemulsion. Fuel 2008;87(12):2517e22.
[17] De Caro Satge P, Mouloungui Z, Vaitilingom G, Berge JC. Interest of combining
an additive with dieseleethanol blends for use in diesel engines. Fuel 2001;80
(4):565e74.
[18] Ali Y, Hanna MA, Borg JE. Optimization of diesel, methyl tallowate and ethanol
blend for reducing emissions from diesel engine. Bioresource Technology
1995;52(3):237e43.
[19] Mani M, Nagarajan G. Inuence of injection timing on performance, emission
and combustion characteristics of a DI diesel engine running on waste plastic
oil. Energy 2009;34:1617e23.
[20] Devan PK, Mahalakshmi NV. Performance, emission and combustion charac-
teristics of poon oil and its diesel blend in a DI diesel engine. Fuel
2009;88:861e7.
[21] Doebelin Ernest O, Manik Dhanesh N. Measurement systems. 5th ed. Tata
McGraw Hill; 2007. p. 62.
[22] Hui Qi Dong, Chen Hao, Fon Lee Chia, Min Geng Li, Zhang Bian Yao. Experi-
mental studies of a naturally aspirated, DI diesel fuelled with etha-
nolebiodieselewater micro emulsions. Energy Fuels 2010;24:652e733.
[23] Cheng CH, Cheung CS, Chan TL, Lee SC, Yao CD, Tsang KS. Comparison of
emission of a direct injection diesel engine operating on biodiesel with
emulsied and fumigated methanol. Fuel 2008;87(10):1870e9.
[24] Kadota T, Yamasaki H. Recent advances in the combination of water fuel
emulsion. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2002;28(5):385e404.
[25] Ramadhas AS, Muraleedharan C, Jayaraj S. Performance and emission evalu-
ation of a diesel engine fueled with methyl esters of rubber seed oil.
Renewable Energy 2005;30:1789e800.
[26] Senthil Kumar M, Kerihuel A, Bellettre J, Tazerout J. Ethanol animal fat
emulsions as a diesel engine fuelepart 2: engine test analysis. Fuel 2006;85
(17e18):2646e52.
[27] Nwafor OMI. Emission characteristics of diesel engine operating on rapeseed
methyl ester. Renewable Energy 2004;29:119e29.
[28] Qi DH, Chen H, Matthews RD, Bian YZH. Combustion and emission charac-
teristics of ethanolebiodieselewater microe emulsions used in a direct
injection compression ignition engine. Fuel 2010;89:958e64.
[29] Karabektas Murat, Hosoz Murat. Performance and emission characteristics of
a diesel engine using isobutanolediesel fuel blends. Renewable Energy
2009;34:1554e9.
[30] Addy Majewski W, Khair Magdi K. Diesel emissions and their control.
Warrendale: USA: SAE International; 2006.
[31] McCormick RL, Tennant CJ, Hayes RR, Black S, Ireland J, McDaniel T, et al.
Regulated emissions from biodiesel tested in heavy-duty engines meeting.
Emission Standards; 2004. SAE paper 2005; No 2005e01e2200.
[32] Lauperta M, Armas O, RodriguezeFernandez J. Effect of the degree of unsa-
turation of biodiesel fuels on NO
x
and particulate emissions. SAE Paper; 2008.
No 2008e01e1676.
[33] Musculus Mark PB, John ED. Effects of waterefuel emulsions on spray and
combustion processes in a heavyeduty DI diesel engine. SAE Paper; 2002. No
2002e01e2892.
[34] Heywood JohnB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. USA: Tata
McGraweHill; 1988. p. 505.
G.R. Kannan, R. Anand / Energy 36 (2011) 1680e1687 1687