Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Review

Biodiesel from vegetable oil as alternate fuel for C.I engine and feasibility
study of thermal cracking: A critical review
S. Ramkumar ⇑, V. Kirubakaran
Rural Energy Centre, Gandhigram Rural Institute, Deemed University, Gandhigram, Tamil Nadu, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The awareness about using eco friendly fuels like biodiesel is increasing every day. The Increase in global
Received 8 December 2015 warming and energy crises due to fossil fuel has accelerated the search of bio fuels. Biodiesel is a promis-
Received in revised form 17 February 2016 ing fuel; it is available in a wide range in every part of the world. Most of the studies reveal that the per-
Accepted 25 March 2016
formance of biodiesel is better than that of diesel. Except NOx, the major emissions are high in the case of
fossil fuels. This paper reviews the performance and emission characteristics of biodiesel in C.I engines.
The paper also reviews the influence of engine modifications, various additives, and various proportions
Keywords:
of blends of biodiesel with diesel. The physical and thermal characteristics of biodiesel have a great influ-
Biodiesel
Vegetable oil
ence in the performance and emission, and they are tabulated in this paper. This paper also attempts fea-
C.I engine sibility of admitting vegetable oil in IC engine through Thermal Cracking. Preliminary investigation shows
Thermal cracking encouraging results and reported in this paper.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
2. Physical and thermal properties of biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
2.1. Calorific value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
2.2. Kinematic viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2.3. Cetane number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2.4. Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2.5. Flash point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2.6. Cloud point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2.7. Pour point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
3. Performance and emission characteristics of various biodiesel and its blend in C.I engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
3.1. Biodiesel–alcohol blend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
3.2. Biodiesel–synthetic oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
3.3. Biodiesel with additive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
3.4. Biodiesel-nano paricles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
3.5. Animal fat biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
3.6. Used vegetable oil biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
3.7. Biodiesel–water blend. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
3.8. Microalga biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
4. Performance and emission characteristics of modified C.I engine fueled with biodiesel and its blend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
4.1. Modified injection pressure, nozzle hole size and injection timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
4.2. EGR and SCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
4.3. H.C.C.I engine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
4.4. Thermal barrier coated C.I engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
5. Advantages of biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yesram98@gmail.com (S. Ramkumar).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.03.071
0196-8904/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
156 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169

Nomenclature

BSFC brake specific fuel consumption C.I compression ignition

BTE brake thermal efficiency C.R compression ratio
NOx nitrogen oxides I.P injection pressure
CO carbon monoxide Bxx xx (numbers) indicates the percentage of biodiesel in
CO2 carbon dioxide the blend with diesel (Volume Basis)
HC hydrocarbons

6. Disadvantages of biodiesel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

7. Thermal cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

1. Introduction diesel. Owing to the higher lubricity of biodiesel–ethanol blend,

BTE was better than the one with Diesel. The absence of oxygen
The demand for energy is increasing every day, and it has in diesel led to higher CO emission for diesel than ethanol-
become one of the most important things without which life would biodiesel blend and biodiesel–diesel blend [2].
be very difficult in this modern world. At present, the major part of Cumali Ilkilic et al. used a single cylinder C.I engine and used the
energy is obtained from fossil fuel. If the fossil fuel is used at the blend of 75% cotton seed biodiesel–25% diesel and compared the
same rate as is used today, the locked-up hydrocarbons as fuel will performance and emission characteristics with diesel. The SFC for
be released in the atmosphere as a product of combustion. So, this B75 and diesel was found to be 308 g/kW h and 302 g/kW h,
increases atmospheric pollution and green house gas, which leads respectively. This was due to the higher density of B75 than Diesel,
to adverse effect on the environment. The only solution to reduce so the mass fuel taken inside was higher for B75 because of lower
the usage of fossil fuel is to increase the usage of renewable energy calorific value. The CO emission for diesel was 9.78% and for B75, it
resources. Over the wide range of renewable energy resources, bio- was 7.7%. With an increase in the speed of the engine, the turbu-
diesel is a promising energy source. A green fuel and the green- lence inside the cylinder increased, so the combustion temperature
house gas thus produced create nullified effect on the increased with the increase in speed. CO was less for B75 than die-
environment, so the usage of biodiesel is increasing steadily. For sel by 36% to 67%. The NOx was less for B75 than diesel because the
utilizing every source effectively, a device has to be designed to combustion duration for B75 was less than diesel. The HC was
convert energy from one form to another useful form. Biodiesel higher for diesel than B75 because the oxygen in the biodiesel
can be used directly in conventional energy when compared to led to better combustion of B75 than diesel [4].
other renewable energy resources. The seed collection and extrac- Many earlier works have explained the process involved in the
tion of oil from the seeds need man power and energy, but on the production of biodiesel; so, that part is not dealt with in this paper.
other side, it provides job for rural people and helps the growth of In many review papers, standards of biodiesel are tabulated so the
small industries. standard is not mentioned in the paper. This paper reviews various
Magin Lapuerta et al. reviewed many papers on the working of reports on the performance and emission characteristics in C.I
C.I engine fueled with blends of biodiesel–diesel. Based on the engine. A deep understanding of the physical and thermal proper-
results, the researcher had presented a trend curve for perfor- ties of biodiesel in C.I engine is necessary, so they are tabulated in
mance and emission characteristics. Most of the experiments were this paper. Almost all the earlier works have done their blends on
conducted in test bed and for short-term test purpose. The authors volume basis.
had mentioned that the biodiesel had 9% lesser calorific value on
volume basis and 14% lesser calorific value on mass basis when 2. Physical and thermal properties of biodiesel
compared with diesel. The plotted trend curve shows that BSFC
is higher for biodiesel than diesel. The trend curve increases lin- 2.1. Calorific value
early with the increase in the percentage of biodiesel in the blend.
The NOx increases linearly with the increase in the percentage of Calorific value is the energy content per unit mass of the fuel. In
biodiesel. The total amount of unburned hydrocarbon, carbon other words, calorific value can be defined as the heat energy
monoxide and the particulate matter for biodiesel is less than die- released while completely burning a known fuel, where the end
sel [1]. products are cooled back to their initial temperature. Heating value
Huseyin Aydin et al. used a single cylinder four stroke variable is measured using calorimeter by burning known mass of a fuel,
speed engine to test the performance and emission characteristics and the temperature difference is used to measure the calorific
of C.I engine fueled with a blend of 20% sunflower oil biodiesel– value of the fuel. In most cases, the calorific value of the biodiesel
80% diesel and the other different blend of 80% sunflower oil bio- is less than diesel, but the difference is not significantly higher as
diesel and 20% ethanol. To reduce the viscosity and increase the an unusable fuel in C.I engine. The lesser calorific value of the bio-
usage of biodiesel in the unmodified engine, ethanol was blended diesel indicates that more mass of biodiesel is required to produce
with diesel. It was found that biodiesel–diesel blend and biodie- equal output produced by the diesel [61,62]. From Table 1, it is
sel–ethanol blend produced almost equal power at different clear that the calorific value of biodiesel is lesser than mineral die-
speeds. The brake thermal efficiency was higher at 2500 rpm; it sel. Koroch biodiesel has the least calorific value of 35.72 MJ/kg,
was found to be 31.7 percent for 80% biodiesel–20% ethanol, whereeas Mustard biodiesel has the highest calorific value of
28.15 percent for diesel and 25.95 percent for 20% biodiesel–80% 40.4 MJ/kg.
 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169 157

Table 1
Physical and thermal properties of various biodiesel forms and their blends with diesel.

Fuel Blend Calorific value Kinematic viscosity Cetane Density Flash point Pour point Cloud point Refs.
ratio (MJ/kg) (@40 °C cSt) number (kg/m3) (°C) (°C) (°C)
Koroch biodiesel B100 35.72 4.08 53.40 870 145 1 4 [24]
Paradise Oil biodiesel B100 40.285 5.4 51 875 142.2 2 [25]
Polanga biodiesel B100 38.66 4.92 – – 140 4.3 13.2 [24]
Mustard biodiesel B100 40.4 5.76 – 864.8 149.5
18 16 [45]
Rubber biodiesel B100 36.50 5.81 – 874 130
8 4 [24]
Rapeseed oil biodiesel B100 37.23 4.79 53.4 884.7 178 –
10 [41]
Rice Bran biodiesel B100 39.43 4.1 53.3 – 169 – – [30]
Mahua oil biodiesel B100 37 3.98 51 880 208 6 5 [24]
Mahua oil biodiesel B100 42.293 5.39 51.2 – 157 2 16 [57]
Sunflower oil Biodiesel B100 37.5 4.4 50 880 – – – [21]
Sunflower oil Biodiesel B100 36.66 5.78 46 892 157.6
6 – [32]
Cotton oil biodiesel B100 37.5 4 52 885 – – – [21]
Soybean biodiesel B100 37.5 – 55 877.25 –
3 3 [33]
Soybean biodiesel B100 36.395 – 56 870 – – – [10]
Soybean biodiesel B100 33.5 4.1 – 840 130 – – [60]
Soybean biodiesel B100 37.4 4.512 54.1 – 123 – 18 [50]
Soybean biodiesel B100 36.22 4.25 51.3 876 130 – – [51]
Soybean biodiesel B100 41.2 4.78 49 – – – – [12]
Soybean biodiesel B80 43 3.70 42 – – – – [12]
Diesel B0 44.22 2.87 – – 76
3 6.5 [20]
Polanga seed biodiesel B20 43.85 2.98 – – 86 2.8 7.8 [20]
Polanga seed Biodiesel B40 42.65 3.30 – – 91 2.8 8.5 [20]
Polanga seed Biodiesel B60 40.98 3.61 – – 96 3.2 10.6 [20]
Polanga seed Biodiesel B80 39.23 3.72 – – 111 3.6 10.8 [20]
Polanga seed Biodiesel B100 38.66 4.92 – – 140 4.3 13.2 [20]
Neem Biodiesel B5 40.6 4.2 54 – 148 – – [22]
Neem Biodiesel B10 40.3 3.89 58 – 127 – – [22]
Neem Biodiesel B15 40 3.57 61 – 102 – – [22]
Neem Biodiesel B100 41 4.5 51 – 165 – – [22]
Neem oil Biodiesel B100 40 4 57 – – 4.3 13.2 [31]
Diesel B0 45.573 1.86 – 830 – –
41 [35]
Canola Biodiesel B5 45.293 2.13 – 832.5 – –
37 [35]
Canola Biodiesel B10 45.016 2.19 – 835.1 – –
34 [35]
Canola Biodiesel B20 44.466 2.5 – 840.2 – –
25 [35]
Canola Biodiesel B100 40.296 4.2 – 881 – –
4 [35]
Coconut Biodiesel B20 43.89 3.74 – 843.1 – – – [39]
Coconut Biodiesel B30 43.152 3.3793 – 838.2 75 – – [37]
Coconut Biodiesel B100 38.284 4.09 – 858.2 118.5 – – [37]
Diesel B0 46.40 3.61 48 830.5 71
8 4 [23]
Jatropha Biodiesel B20 44.10 3.99 49 840.2 93.5
3 4 [23]
Jatropha Biodiesel B10 45.50 3.75 48 835.6 87.5
5 3 [23]
Jatropha Biodiesel B100 39.83 4.77 51 864 202.5 – – [47]
Jatropha Biodiesel B100 39.827 4.74 51.7 867 186 3 4 [44]
Jatropha Biodiesel B100 39.23 4.40 57.1 880 163 2 4 [24]
Jatropha Biodiesel B100 39.79 4.73 52 862.2 182.5 3 3 [23]
Diesel B0 45.238 3.0738 – 829.6 68 – – [37]
Palm oil biodiesel B10 43.30 3.71 49 833.5 82.5
3 5 [23]
Palm oil biodiesel B20 39.79 3.98 50 836.5 90.5
1 7 [23]
Palm oil biodiesel B30 43.869 3.5366 – 841.8 75 – – [37]
Palm oil biodiesel B100 39.910 4.6175 – 870 140.5 – – [37]
Palm oil biodiesel B100 39.40 4.87 61.15 878 153
13.1 11.9 [46]
Palm oil biodiesel B100 39.90 4.69 55 859 188.5 – – [47]
Palm oil biodiesel B100 40.03 – 64.6 830 182 – – [15]
Palm oil biodiesel B100 39.9 4.65 59.5 857 181 11 10 [44]
Palm oil biodiesel B100 39.91 4.62 60 859.2 172.5 15 16 [23]
Palm oil biodiesel B100 40 4.6 67 875 – – – [36]
Pongamia oil Biodiesel B10 43.18 3.04 – 836 – – – [42]
Pongamia oil Biodiesel B20 42.57 3.11 – 841 – – – [42]
Pongamia oil Biodiesel B50 40.8 3.51 – 856 – – – [42]
Pongamia oil Biodiesel B100 37.98 4.42 50.8 881 – – – [42]
Pongamia oil Biodiesel B5 40.568 4.1 – 866 – –
7 [35]
Pongamia oil Biodiesel B10 40.839 3.6 – 862 – –
8 [35]
Pongamia oil Biodiesel B20 41.390 3.07 – 854 – –
9 [35]
Pongamia oil Biodiesel B50 43.113 2.12 – 830 – –
23 [35]
Pongamia oil Biodiesel B100 46.250 1.02 – 790 – –
78 [35]
Pongamia oil Biodiesel B100 36.12 3.99 57.60 880 160 5 12 [24]
Diesel B0 44.12 2.9 49 850 76 3.1 6.5 [43]
Diesel B0 45.39 – 53.65 846 – – – [52]
Pistacia Chinensis Bunge B10 44.63 – 55.29 848 – – – [52]
Seed Biodiesel
Pistacia Chinensis Bunge B20 43.88 – 56.92 851 – – – [52]
Seed Biodiesel

(continued on next page)

158 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169

Table 1 (continued)

Fuel Blend Calorific value Kinematic viscosity Cetane Density Flash point Pour point Cloud point Refs.
ratio (MJ/kg) (@40 °C cSt) number (kg/m3) (°C) (°C) (°C)
Pistacia Chinensis Bunge B30 43.12 – 58.54 853 – – – [52]
Seed Biodiesel
Waste oil biodiesel B100 42.13 – 55.3 880 – – – [38]
Waste Vegetable Oil Biodiesel B100 39.305 – – – 109 – – [27]
Waste cooking oil Biodiesel B100 39.50 4.3 70 815 82 – – [40]
Waste cooking oil Biodiesel B20 39.465 3.871 – 847 81 – – [59]
Waste cooking oil Biodiesel B50 39.290 4.039 – 851 87 – – [59]
Used cooked oil Biodiesel B100 40.5 4.57 52 855 126 – – [34]
Veg fried oil Biodiesel B100 42.588 5.11 61.28 876.1 161 7 13 [48]
Non-Veg fried Biodiesel B100 42.374 5.81 61.082 878.4 173 8 14 [48]
Residual frying B100 38.98 4.753 53.5 885 108 – – [49]
oil Biodiesel

2.2. Kinematic viscosity
Viscosity is defined as the internal friction or resistance of a liq-
uid to flow. It is measured by allowing a liquid to flow in a standard
size hole. Based on the time, the size of the hole, and the volume of
the liquid flow, the viscosity is determined. The viscosity changes
for different temperatures. Increase in temperature decreases the
viscosity of biodiesel. In most cases, the viscosity of biodiesel is
higher than that of diesel. Due to higher viscosity, the atomization
property is reduced, so this may increase the fuel droplet size when
compared to diesel. Due to the increased droplet size of the
injected biodiesel, the shoot emission may increase. On the other
hand, the higher viscosity of biodiesel acts as a good lubricating
agent, and so mechanical efficiency is improved. It is measured
in centipoises (mm2 s
1) [61,62,28]. From Table 1, it is evident that
biodiesel has higher viscosity than diesel. It can be noted from
Table 1 that Paradise Oil biodiesel, Mustard biodiesel, Rubber bio-
diesel, Mahua oil biodiesel, Veg. fried oil Biodiesel and Non-Veg.
fried Biodiesel have viscosity above 5 cSt.
2.3. Cetane number
Cetane number measures the ignition quality for a fuel in com-
pression engine. The cetane number is given based on carbon and
hydrogen ratio in the fuel. N-hexadecane (C10H34) has the highest
ignition quality, so it is considered as the top fuel in cetane scale
with highest cetane number 100. Heptamethylnonane is a stable
compound with lowest cetane number of 15. Thus, the presence
of n-cetane and heptamethylnonane determines the cetane num-
ber. It is mathematically given by
Cetane number ¼ ½ð100=100Þ  ðpercent n-cetaneÞ
þ ð15=100Þ  ðpercent heptamethylnonaneÞ
The cetane number is determined using standard single cylin-
der, variable compression ignition engine, with constant speed of
900 rpm, intake air temperature of 65.6 °C and injection timing
of 13o before top dead center and injection pressure of 10.3Mpa.
The test fuel is used at the test engine with the above operating
condition, and the compression ratio is changed until the combus-
tion starts exactly at top dead center. The same procedure was
repeated with different reference fuels at different compression
ratio for each fuel, so as to achieve ignition delay of 13°. When
the compression ratio for the test fuel is bracketed by the reference
fuel, and then the cetane number is interpolated.
Higher cetane number indicates lesser ignition delay. The lesser
ignition delay reduces the accumulation of injected fuel in the
cylinder, so knocking in C.I engine is reduced by smooth rise in
temperature and pressure inside the cylinder. Most biodiesel forms
have higher cetane number than diesel, so the usage of biodiesel
may increase the life of the engine. Palm oil biodiesel and waste
cooked oil biodiesel have the higher level cetane number with 67
and 70, respectively.
2.4. Density
Density is defined as the ratio of mass to volume or, simply,
mass per unit volume. Density of the fuel has influence on total
fuel consumption and BSFC. Density of fuel would affect the fuel
injection property such as injection timing, spray characteristics
and spray penetration. Density of most biodiesel is found to be
higher than diesel, so mass of biodiesel would be higher for the
same volume of diesel. The spray penetration property for biodie-
sel would be good and the fuel injection timing would get
advanced for biodiesel compared with diesel [26,61,62].
2.5. Flash point
Flash point is the minimum temperature at which the fuel pro-
duces enough vapor to get ignited when exposed to external fire.
The handling of fuel would be safer if the flash point is higher.
From Table 1, it is evident that the flash point of biodiesel is three
times higher than that of mineral diesel. So, handling of biodiesel is
far safer than diesel [61,62].
2.6. Cloud point
Cloud point is defined as the temperature at which the fuel
shows visible cloudiness. This cloudiness indicates that the fuel
starts to solidify. At this stage, the fuel starts to get solidified.
The cloud point of biodiesel is higher than diesel, so it is more dif-
ficult to operate at lower temperature than diesel.
2.7. Pour point
Pour point is the temperature at which the fuel gets totally
solidified and looks like a gel. It shows that the pour point is the
minimum temperature at which the vehicle can be operated with-
out any heating aid of the fuel. The pour point of biodiesel is higher
than diesel, so it makes less feasible to operate vehicle with biodie-
sel in colder region than with mineral diesel.
From Table 1, it is clear that the same biodiesel from different
authors has different physical and thermal characteristics. It may
be due to different weather conditions and soil conditions in which
the plant was grown. The catalyst, alcohol and the methodology
used to produce biodiesel also have influence in physical and ther-
mal characteristics. To understand the characteristic of different
blend ratios of biodiesel and to know the range to which the char-
acteristics can fall, all the different sources of the same biodiesel
and diesel are tabulated. To show the influence of diesel with
 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169 159

Table 2 sunflower oil methyl esters blended with diesel and cotton seed oil
Brake thermal efficiency of the various biodiesel forms in various engines. methyl ester carried with diesel as base fuel. The engine was oper-
Engine specification & operating Fuel used BTE Refs. ated at two different speeds – viz., 1200 rpm and 1500 rpm – and
condition (%) at three different load conditions. As the percentage of biodiesel
Direct injection, water cooled Waste cooking oil 38.46 [18] increased, the shoot density decreased, due to the presence of oxy-
engine, Bore/Stroke:80/110 mm, Biodiesel 40%–Diesel gen in biodiesel. The presence of oxygen in the biodiesel led to
R.P.M:1500, Load: 100% 60% make less air fuel ratio area to oxygen rich area. This led to increase
Waste cooking oil 37.18 [18]
Biodiesel 20%–Diesel
the local temperature and NOx. In contrast to other authors, this
80% experiment produced higher HC in biodiesel than diesel. The
Waste cooking oil 34.45 [18] authors stated that the BTE of biodiesel was almost equal to diesel.
Biodiesel 60%–Diesel The cotton seed oil biodiesel was emission-wise better than the
40%
sunflower seed oil biodiesel because of the presence of higher per-
Constant speed C.I engine, Bore/ Diesel 100 27 [12]
Stroke:87.5/110 mm, C.R:17.5:1, Soybean Biodiesel 26.5 [12] centage of lighter and saturated palamitic acid in cotton seed [6].
661 cc, Load: 100% 20%–Diesel 80% Muralidharan et al. [18] evaluated the performance and emis-
Water cooled, Single cylinder, Bore/ Diesel 100% 30.09 [57] sion characteristics with various blends of waste cooking oil bio-
Stroke:80/110 mm, C.R:16.5:1, Mahua oil Biodiesel 29.97 [57] diesel. Biodiesel was used with different blend ratios, namely
R.P.M:1500 Load:100% 85%–Dimethyl
20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% with diesel. A constant speed engine with
carbonate 15%
Mahua oil Biodiesel 29.74 [57] 1500 rpm was used for test purpose, and the results were com-
90%–Dimethyl pared with standard diesel operation.
carbonate 10% For all the fuels with increase in load, the BTE increased. With
Mahua oil Biodiesel 28.01 [57]
the increase in the percentage of biodiesel, the BTE decreased
95%–Dimethyl
carbonate 5% because of the higher fuel consumption and lower calorific value
Mahua oil Biodiesel 26.63 [57] of biodiesel. B40 had the maximum BTE of 38.46%, i.e., 4.1% higher
100% than diesel. With the increase in load, the exhaust temperature
Bore/stroke-87.5/110 mm Injection 100% Mahua oil 27.4 [16] decreased. Due to the lesser calorific value of the biodiesel with
Pressure: 250 Bar Direct injection Biodiesel
the increase in the percentage of biodiesel in the blend, the EGT
R.P.M: 1500 Load: 100%
decreased. For all the blends of the waste cooking oil biodiesel used
in this experiment, the mechanical efficiency increased with the
biodiesel in the blend, the properties of diesel from different increase in load. The blends had higher mechanical efficiency
sources are also mentioned. because of the high reaction activity of the fuel. The fuel with blend
of biodiesel had higher NOx than diesel because the plant oil natu-
3. Performance and emission characteristics of various rally had the nitrogen content along with it, and this would get
biodiesel and its blend in C.I engine involved in the production of NOx. The peak temperature produced
during the combustion of the biodiesel was higher than diesel, so
Rakopoulos et al. investigated the performance and emission the NOx produced during the combustion of biodiesel was higher
characteristics of a six cylinder turbocharged C.I engine fueled with than diesel. The higher viscosity of the biodiesel blends led to poor

Table 3
BSFC of the various biodiesel forms in various engines and different conditions.

Engine specification & operating condition Fuel used BSFC (g/kW-h) Refs.
Rated output 6.5 kW Liquid cooled Bore/stroke:67/68 mm Used Cooking Oil Biodiesel100% 401 [19]
2 cylinder C.R: 23.5:1, Load: 92% Diesel 45%–Used Cooked Biodiesel45–10% Butanol 370 [19]
Diesel 100% 362 [19]
Diesel 50%–Used Cooked Oil Biodiesel 50% 355 [19]
Constant speed C.I engine, Bore/Stroke: 87.5/110 mm, C.R: Diesel 350 [12]
17.5:1, 661 cc, Load: 100% Diesel 80%–Soybean Biodiesel 15%–4% Ethanol–1% 321 [12]
Isopropanol–Alumina Nanoparticles of 100 Mg/L – D80
Water cooled, Single cylinder, Bore/Stroke:80/110 mm, C.R: Mahua oil Biodiesel 100% 556 [57]
16.5:1, R.P.M: 1500 Load: 100% load 1500 rpm Mahua oil Biodiesel 95%–Dimethyl carbonate 5% 503 [57]
Mahua oil Biodiesel 90%–Dimethyl carbonate 10% 499 [57]
Mahua oil Biodiesel 85%–Dimethyl carbonate 15% 410 [57]
Diesel 100% 387 [57]
Direct injection Bore/stroke: 87.3/110 mm, 1318 cc, R.P.M: 1500 Canola Oil 20%–Diesel 80% 630 [53]
Used Canola Oil Biodiesel 20–D80 627 [53]
Canola Oil Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 80% 626 [53]
Diesel 100% 619 [53]
Direct Injection, six cylinder inline, Bore/Stroke:128/150 mm, Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 80% 261.9 [58]
11.580 L, C.R:16.1:1, Load 100% R.P.M: 1500 Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 5%–Diesel 95% 261.6 [58]
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 80%–CeO2-MWCNTs 30 ppm 261 [58]
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 5%–Diesel 95%–CeO2-MWCNTs 30 ppm 260.5 [58]
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 5%–Diesel 95%–CeO2-MWCNTs 60 ppm 259.4 [58]
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 80%–CeO2-MWCNTs 60 ppm 258 [58]
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 5%–Diesel 95%–CeO2-MWCNTs 90 ppm 253.5 [58]
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 80%–CeO2-MWCNTs 90 ppm 250.1 [58]
Bore/stroke-87.5/110 mm Injection Pressure: 250 Bar Direct Mahua oil Biodiesel 440 [16]
injection, At full load condition 1500 rpm Hot SCR
Bore/stroke-87.5/110 mm Injection Pressure: 250 Bar Direct Mahua oil Biodiesel 414 [16]
injection, At full load condition 1500 rpm Conventional engine
160 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169

Table 4 Table 6
Maximum combustion pressure of the various biodiesel forms in various engines and NOx of the various biodiesel forms in various engines and different conditions.
different conditions.
Engine specification & Fuel used NOx Refs.
Engine specification & Fuel used Maximum Refs. operating condition (ppm)
operating condition combustion
Direct injection, water cooled Waste cooking oil Biodiesel 1125 [18]
pressure (bar)
engine Bore/Stroke: 80/ 20%–Diesel 80%
Direct injection, water cooled Waste cooking oil 69.45 [18] 110 mm, 1500 rpm, at 100% Diesel 990 [18]
engine Bore/Stroke: 80/ Biodiesel 60%–Diesel 40% load,
110 mm, Maximum Waste cooking oil 68.66 [18] Single cylinder C.R: 20:1 Single Diesel 70%–Soybean Biodiesel 481 [10]
combustion pressure at Biodiesel 40%–Diesel 60% cylinder, Indirect injection, 30%
1500 rpm, at 100% load Diesel 100% 67.84 [18] 567 cc, Load-1580 W, Speed- Diesel 70%–Soybean Biodiesel 352 [10]
Waste cooking oil 66.79 [18] 1800 rpm 30%–Injection Of Ethanol 5%
Biodiesel 80%–Diesel 20% Diesel 70%–Soybean Biodiesel 284 [10]
B80 30%–Injection Of Ethanol 9%
Waste cooking oil 66.22 [18] Diesel 70%–Soybean Biodiesel 240 [10]
Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 80% 30%–500 ppm Of Di-Tert-Butyl
Constant speed C.I engine, Diesel 80%–Soybean 65.01 [12] Peroxide – Injection Of Ethanol
Bore/Stroke: 87.5/110 mm, Biodiesel 15–Ethanol 4%- 15%
C.R: 17.5:1, 661 cc, Cylinder Isopropanol 1%–Alumina Diesel 70%–Soyabean Biodiesel 190 [10]
Pressure At 100% Load Nano Particles Of 30%–Injection Of Ethanol 15%
100 Mg/L Rated output 6.5 kW Liquid Used Cooked Oil Biodiesel 100% 480 [19]
cooled Bore/stroke:67/ Used Cooked Oil Biodiesel 95– 478 [19]
68 mm 2 cylinder C.R: Butanol 5%
23.5:1, Load: 92% Used Cooked Oil Biodiesel 90– 476 [19]
Table 5 Butanol 10%
EGT of the various biodiesel forms in various engines and different conditions. Used Cooked Oil Biodiesel 80– 450 [19]
Butanol 10%
Engine specification & operating Fuel used EGT Refs. D100 430 [19]
condition (°C) Constant speed C.I engine, Bore/ Diesel 80%–Soybean Biodiesel 1971 [12]
Direct injection, water cooled Diesel 308.33 [18] Stroke:87.5/110 mm, C.R: 15%–Ethanol 4%–Isopropanol
engine Bore/Stroke: 80/ Waste cooking oil Biodiesel 279.55 [18] 17.5:1, 661 cc, NOx At 100% 1%–Alumina Nano Particles Of
110 mm, R.P.M: 1500 20%–Diesel 80% Load 100 Mg/L
Load:100% Waste cooking oil Biodiesel 266.83 [18] Soybean Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 1921 [12]
60%–Diesel 40% 80%
Waste cooking oil Biodiesel 255 [18] Diesel 100% 1792 [12]
80%–Diesel 20% Water cooled, Single cylin der, Mahua oil Biodiesel 100% 1059 [57]
Rated output 6.5 kW Liquid Diesel 100% 267 [19] Bore/Stroke: 80/110 mm, C. Mahua oil Biodiesel 95%– 988 [57]
cooled Bore /stroke:67/68 mm Diesel 45%–Used Cooking Oil 253 [19] R: 16.5:1, NOx at 100% load Dimethyl carbonate 5%
2 cylinder C.R: 23.5:1, Load: Biodiesel 45%–10% Butanol and 1500 rpm Mahua oil Biodiesel 90%– 967 [57]
92% Blend Of 50% Diesel–50% 252 [19] Dimethyl carbonate 10%
Biodiesel Mahua oil Biodiesel 85%– 836 [57]
Used Cooking Oil Biodiesel 250 [19] Dimethyl carbonate 15%
100% Diesel 100% 573 [57]
Diesel 40%–Used Cooking Oil 245 [19] Direct injection with glow plug, Diesel 1097 [56]
Biodiesel 40%–Butanol 20% 3907 cc, Bore/Stroke:104/ Microalgae Biodiesel 100% 1040 [56]
Constant speed C.I engine, Bore/ Diesel 100% 440 [12] 115 mm, NOx at 1600 rpm
Stroke: 87.5/110 mm, C.R: 80% Diesel–15% Soybean 420 [12] Direct injection with glow plug, Diesel 945 [56]
17.5:1, 661 cc Load: 100% Biodiesel–4% Ethanol–1% 3907 cc, Bore/Stroke, NOx at Microalgae Biodiesel 100% 840 [56]
Isopropanol–Alumina 2400 rpm
Nanoparticles of 100 Mg/L
Soybean Biodiesel 20%– 415 [12]
Diesel 80% ratios: soybean biodiesel–diesel–water containing acetone–buta
Water cooled, Single cylinder, Mahua oil Biodiesel 100% 489 [57] nol–ethanol (ABE).
Bore/Stroke:80/110 mm, C.R: Mahua oil Biodiesel 95%– 467 [57]
16.5:1, Load: 100% R.P. Dimethyl carbonate 5%
Water containing ABE solution blended with diesel–biodiesel
M:1500 rpm Mahua oil Biodiesel 90%– 454 [57] produced 7.88% BTE higher than diesel and diesel–soybean biodie-
Dimethyl carbonate 10% sel blends. At high load conditions, B50 and B75 produced almost
Mahua oil Biodiesel 85%– 451 [57] equal BTE as that of diesel. Because of the lesser heating value of
Dimethyl carbonate 15%
the biodiesel, with the increase in the percentage of biodiesel in
Diesel 100% 439 [57]
the blend, the brake specific fuel consumption increased. At higher
loads, the BTEs of fuel with the blends of bio-diesel with different
proportions such as B25, B50, and B75 were almost equal, but at
atomization character and these resulted in an increase in HC com- lower load, the BTE of B50, B75 had lesser efficiency than diesel.
pared with diesel. The ignition delay of biodiesel was higher than At higher loads, the lubricity of biodiesel led to produce efficiency
diesel, so more fuel was accumulated in the cylinder. This led to equal to that of diesel, but at lower load conditions, the viscous fac-
the production of more unburned hydrocarbons in the case of bio- tor of biodiesel led to poor atomization and eventually to lesser
diesel. With the increase in load, the CO increased because more efficiency of biodiesel.
amount of fuel was injected during high load, and so CO emission The blend containing biodiesel-50%, ABE-25%, and diesel-25%
increased. Tables 2–9 were tabulated to understand the behavior of had the higher efficiency than diesel and blends with other combi-
different biodiesels at different engine and operating conditions. nations. This was because of the lower cetane number that helped
to create more time for pre combustion zone and the lower viscos-
3.1. Biodiesel–alcohol blend ity led to higher atomization and more oxygen content facilitated
better combustion.
Performance and emission characteristics of an engine was NOx for all the biodiesel blends were higher than for diesel.
tested by Chang et al. [9] using different blends and different With the increase in the percentage of biodiesel in the blend,
 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169 161

Table 7 Table 8
HC of the various biodiesel forms in various engines and different conditions. CO of the various biodiesel forms in various engines and different conditions.

Engine Specification & Fuel used Result Refs. Engine specification & Fuel used CO Refs.
Operating condition value operating condition (ppm)
Direct injection, water Waste cooking oil Biodiesel 37 g/kW h [18] Direct injection, water cooled Diesel 100% 2950 [18]
cooled engine Bore/ 40%–Diesel 60% engine Bore/Stroke: 80/ Waste cooking oil Biodiesel 1970 [18]
Stroke: 80/110 mm, HC at Waste cooking oil Biodiesel 33 g/kW h [18] 110 mm, R.P.M: 1500, Load: 60%–Diesel 40%
1500 rpm, at 100% load, 80%–Diesel 20%B80 100% Waste cooking oil Biodiesel 16700 [18]
Waste cooking oil Biodiesel 24 g/kW h [18] 80%–Diesel 20%
20%–Diesel 80% Single cylinder C.R: 20:1 Single Diesel 70%–Soybean biodiesel 595 [10]
Diesel 10 g/kW h [18] cylinder, Indirect injection, 30%–Injection Of Ethanol 15%
Single cylinder, C.R: 20:1 Diesel 70%–Soybean 75 ppm [10] 567 cc, CO Load-1580 W, Diesel 70%–Soybean biodiesel 574 [10]
Single cylinder, Indirect biodiesel 30%–Injection Of Speed-1800 rpm 30%-500 ppm Of Di-Tert-Butyl
injection, 567 cc, HC Ethanol 15% Peroxide–Injection Of Ethanol
Load-1580 W, Speed- Diesel 70%–Soybean 71 ppm [10] 15%
1800 rpm biodiesel 30%–500 ppm Of Diesel 70%–Soybean Biodiesel 395 [10]
Di-Tert-Butyl Peroxide – 30%–Injection Of Ethanol 9%
Injection Of Ethanol 15% Diesel 70%–Soybean biodiesel 163 [10]
Diesel 70%–Soybean 11 ppm [10] 30%–Injection Of Ethanol 5%
Biodiesel 30% Diesel 70%–Soybean biodiesel 98 [10]
Diesel 70%–Soybean 29 ppm [10] 30%
biodiesel 30%–Injection Of Rated output 6.5 kW Liquid Used Cooked Oil Biodiesel 95%– 340 [19]
Ethanol 5% cooled Bore/stroke:67/ Butanol 5%
Diesel 70%–Soybean 67 ppm [10] 68 mm 2 cylinder C.R: Used Cooking Oil Biodiesel 100 200 [19]
biodiesel 30%–Injection Of 23.5:1, Load 92%
Ethanol 9% Constant speed C.I engine, Bore/ Soybean Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 500 [12]
Rated output 6.5 kW Liquid Used Cooked Oil Biodiesel 6 ppm [19] Stroke: 87.5/110 mm, C.R: 80%
cooled Bore/stroke:67/ 95%–Butanol 5% 17.5:1, 661 cc, CO At 100% Diesel 80%–15 Soybean 300 [12]
68 mm 2 cylinder C.R: Diesel 100% 5 ppm [19] Load Biodiesel 15%–Ethanol 4%–
23.5:1 Load: 92% Used Cooked Oil Biodiesel 3 ppm [19] Isopropanol 1%–Alumina Nano
90%–Butanol 10% Particles Of 100 Mg/L
Used Cooked Oil Biodiesel 1 ppm [19] Water cooled, Single cylinder, Diesel 100% 8870 [57]
100% Bore/Stroke:80/110 mm, C. Mahua oil Biodiesel 95%– 5730 [57]
Constant speed C.I engine, Soybean Biodiesel 20%– 54 ppm [12] R: 16.5:1, Load 100% R.P.M: Dimethyl carbonate 5%
Bore/Stroke: 87.5/ Diesel 80% 1500 Mahua oil Biodiesel 90%– 5070 [57]
110 mm, C.R: 17.5:1, Diesel 80%–Soybean 50 ppm [12] Dimethyl carbonate 10%
661 cc UBHC At 100% Biodiesel 15%–Ethanol 4%– Mahua oil Biodiesel 85%– 3830 [57]
Load Isopropanol 1%–Alumina Dimethyl carbonate 15%
Nanoparticles Of 100 Mg/L Mahua oil Biodiesel 100% 4860 [57]
Diesel 100% 42 ppm [12] Direct injection with glow plug, Diesel 260 [56]
Direct injection, Bore/stroke: Canola Oil 20%–Diesel 80% 2.5 g/kW h [53] 3907 cc, Bore/Stroke:104/ Microalgae Biodiesel 100% 219 [56]
87.3/110 mm, Canola Oil Biodiesel 20%– 2.97 g/ [53] 115 mm, CO at 1600 rpm
1318 cc,1500 Rpm Diesel 80% kW h Direct injection with glow plug, Diesel 284 [56]
Used Canola Oil Biodiesel 2.92 g/ [53] 3907 cc, Bore/Stroke:104/ Microalgae Biodiesel 100% 307 [56]
20%–Diesel 80% kW h 115 mm Co at 2400 rpm
Water cooled, Single cylin Diesel 100% 55.67 ppm [57]
der, Bore/Stroke: 80/ Mahua oil Biodiesel 95%– 41.22 ppm [57]
110 mm, C.R: 16.5:1, HC Dimethyl carbonate 5%
at 100% load and Mahua oil Biodiesel 90%– 39.87 ppm [57]
Table 9
1500 rpm Dimethyl carbonate 10%
CO2of the various biodiesel forms in various engines and different conditions.
Mahua oil Biodiesel 85%– 34.63 ppm [57]
Dimethyl carbonate 15% Engine specification & Fuel used CO2 Refs.
Mahua oil Biodiesel 100% 31.093 ppm [57] operating condition
Single cylinder, C.R: 20:1 Diesel 70%–Soybean Biodiesel 3.8% [10]
Single cylinder, Indirect 30%
injection, 567 cc, CO2 Diesel 70%–Soybean Biodiesel 3.5% [10]
NOx increased. The inbuilt oxygen in the biodiesel was the reason Load-1580 W, Speed- 30% + Injection Of Ethanol 5%
for higher NOx with the biodiesel blends. The NOx for water con- 1800 rpm Diesel 70%–Soybean Biodiesel 3.4% [10]
taining ABE–biodiesel–diesel blends was reduced up to 63.1% than 30% + Injection Of Ethanol 9%
diesel. Diesel 70%–Soybean Biodiesel 3.1% [10]
30% + Injection Of Ethanol 15%
With the addition of water containing ABE with biodiesel,
Diesel 70%–Soybean Biodiesel 3.1% [10]
the NOx production was reduced more when compared to 30% + 500 ppm Of Di-Tert-
biodiesel–diesel blends. With the addition of 25% of ABE with Butyl Peroxide – Injection Of
biodiesel–diesel blend, the NOx reduced up to 22.7% than Ethanol 15%
soybean biodiesel–diesel blend. The water containing ABE had a Constant speed C.I engine, Soybean Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 8.8% [12]
Bore/Stroke: 87.5/110 mm, 80%
similar character of biodiesel such as lower cetane number and C.R: 17.5:1, 661 cc, Diesel 100% 8.7% [12]
higher oxygen content, but NOx was reduced due to the lower CO2 At 100% Load Diesel 80%–Soybean Biodiesel 8.5% [12]
heating value and higher latent heat of vaporization of water that 15%–Ethanol 4%–Isopropanol
led to lower cylinder temperature eventually resulting in lower 1%–Alumina Nanoparticles Of
100 Mg/L
NOx. The cetane number for water containing ABE had lower
value, so it led to higher ignition lag and increased the duration
of higher temperature which is one of the main key factors in The higher oxygen content in the water containing ABE was the
the NOx production, but the higher latent heat of vaporization reason for the reduced particulate matter. The PM for water con-
of water containing ABE led to decrease in cylinder temperature taining ABE–biodiesel–diesel blends was reduced up to 30.7% than
and NOx production was decreased. for diesel.
162 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169
Ferreira et al. [10] studied the performance and emission char-
acteristics of a single cylinder C.I engine fueled with blends of die-
sel–soybean biodiesel. The performance and emission
characteristics were compared with the same fuel along with dif-
ferent quantities of ethanol being injected in the air near the inlet
manifold and finally additive di-tert-butyl peroxide being mixed
with the diesel–soybean biodiesel blend. The ethanol injection
was done in the inlet manifold. The performance and emission
characteristics with different fuels were compared.
Due to the injection of the ethanol in the inlet air, the temper-
ature of the inlet and the exhaust temperature got reduced.
With the injection of ethanol, reduction in the NOx was seen.
This was because the latent heat of vaporization for ethanol
is 840 kJ/kg, whereas diesel and soybean biodiesel have only
200 kJ/kg and 270 kJ/kg, respectively. So, this led to the reduction
of peak temperature. With the injection of 15% of ethanol during
the usage of soybean biodiesel 30%–diesel 70%blend, the NOx
produced was 190 ppm, whereas without the injection of ethanol
with the same blend, it was 481 ppm.
di-tert-butyl peroxide is a cetane improver, so that the cylinder
temperature and pressure can be increased; the fuel with additive
has higher NOx and lesser CO.
With the increase in the percentage of the injection of ethanol
in the manifold, the HC emission increased. The engine with
D70-soyabean biodiesel 30%–Injection of ethanol 15% produced
75 ppm of HC, whereas the engine with diesel 70%–soybean bio-
diesel 30% without the injection of ethanol produced only
11 ppm. Ethanol injection increases UBHC; since it was injected
in the air, the ethanol got trapped in the cervices, and so the com-
bustion was only partial, or the absence of oxidation would have
resulted in the emission of UBHC during the exhaust stroke.
Yilmaz et al. [19] investigated the performance and emission
characteristics of two cylinder four stroke, naturally aspired indi-
rect injection, C.I engine fueled with diesel and biodiesel with dif-
ferent blend proportions of diesel–biodiesel–butanol.
With the increase in the load, the BSFC decreased for all the
fuels. The used cooking oil biodiesel and blend of used cooking
oil biodiesel–butanol showed higher SFC than diesel. It was
because the calorific value of the biodiesel and butanol was less
than the diesel. With the increase in load, the EGT increased for
all the fuels used for the test purpose. Diesel produced highest
EGT when compared to biodiesel, blends of biodiesel with butanol
and blends of biodiesel with diesel. It was because diesel has the
highest calorific value than the other blends. The use of vegetable
oil biodiesel produced lower HC than other fuels and blends. The
latent heat of vaporization of butanol is higher than that of diesel
and cooked vegetable oil biodiesel. So, this led to incomplete com-
bustion and resulted in higher HC. With the increase in load, the
CO decreased for all the fuels. At 46% of load, as the concentration
of butanol increased, the CO was higher than the biodiesel. With
increase in the percentage of butanol in the blend, the NOx reduced
due to the higher latent heat of vaporization of butanol.
3.2. Biodiesel–synthetic oil
Koc and Mudhafar Abdullah [60] investigated the performance
and emission characteristics of a four cylinder, water cooled C.I
engine fueled with blends of soybean biodiesel, tire oil, and diesel.
The performance and emission characteristics were compared with
those of diesel as a base line fuel. NOx and CO emissions for soy-
bean biodiesel 10%–tire oil 10%–diesel 80% were significantly less
than soybean biodiesel 10%–diesel 90%. Soybean biodiesel 10%–tire
oil 10%–diesel 80% produced its maximum torque of 278 Nm at
1600 rpm. Pure diesel produced a torque of 247.4 Nm, which was
the lowest torque produced compared with the other fuel blends
used in this research. With the increase in the percentage of tire
oil in the blend, the torque increased. The blends of tire oil pro-
duced higher torque than the blends of biodiesel–diesel. At no load
condition, the BSFC at 2800 rpm for Diesel was found to be
450 g kW/h, and for the same running condition, the BSFC for soy-
bean biodiesel 10%–tire oil 10%–diesel 80% was found to be
343 g kW/h. But, there was no significant difference in BSFC while
comparing soybean biodiesel 10%–tire oil 10%–diesel 80% and soy-
bean biodiesel 10%–diesel 90%. With the increase in the engine
speed, the CO emission got decreased. At all operating conditions,
the CO for soybean biodiesel 10%–tire oil 10%–diesel 80% was
found to be lower than for diesel.
3.3. Biodiesel with additive
Rashedul et al. [11] reviewed many journals based on biodiesel
and different additives that are used in C.I engine. Additives are
used to improve the performance and emission characteristics of
biodiesel. Higher viscosity and lower calorific value of the biodiesel
are the main problem in the usage of biodiesel in C.I engine. Pres-
ence of oxygen content leads to produce higher NOx than diesel.
Storage of biodiesel for longer period leads to micro contamination
and oxidation. It was found that the pore point is higher for biodie-
sel. Biodiesel is so corrosive that the fuel pipe line would be cor-
roded in the longer usage. To solve the above problems, additives
are used. Cerium oxide, platinum based additive, Isobutanol and
antioxidants with biodiesel reduce BSFC. Cerium oxide, platinum
based additives and thetmol-D improve the BTE.
Metal based additive like platinum, manganese, copper and iron
are used. During the time of combustion, the nano metal particles
react with water and carbon is produced. This leads to improved
combustion temperature. Magnesium and nickel, diethyl ether
and nonyl phenoxy acetic acid with biodiesel based alloy reduce
CO. FeCl3, butylated hydroxyanisol and butylated hydroxytoluene
reduce HC.
Magnesium and nickel based additive in biodiesel reduces the
flash point and viscosity. FeCl3 as an additive with biodiesel leads
to reduction in the flash point, thus improving the calorific value
and the cetane number. TiO2 with biodiesel increases engine
power. Cerium oxide as an additive reduces the NOx.
Oxygenated additive contains oxygen to improve the combus-
tion process, so that the performance of the engine gets increased
and the emissions such as CO and UBHC get decreased. Alcohol,
ether and ester are some of the commonly used oxygenated addi-
tives. Methanol blend with biodiesel reduces the viscosity, flash
point, and density. Blends of alcohol–biodiesel and kerosene–bio-
diesel are found to increase the cloud point and the pour point of
the biodiesel. Diethyl ether as well as L-ascorbic acid reduces
NOx. Ethanol with biodiesel reduces the CO2. Amides, fatty acids
and esters are commonly used as additives for improving the
lubricity.
The commonly used cetane improver is Alkyl nitrate. The cetane
improvers significantly increase the cetane number in biodiesel,
and the cold starting problem is avoided while using biodiesel.
Ileri and Kocar [14] used five different antioxidant additives to
analyze the oxidation stability and emission characteristics of a
2.5 L C.I engine fueled with the blend of 20% canola oil biodiesel–
80% diesel, and five different anti oxidant additives with different
concentrations of 500 ppm, 750 ppm, and 1000 ppm were used
to analyze the oxidation stability and the emission characteristics.
The anti oxidative additive used was butylated hydroxyanisole,
butylated hydroxytoluene, tert-butylhydroquinone, and
2-ethylhexyl nitrate.
The stability was found in the order of tert-butylhydro-
quinone > butylated hydroxyanisole > butylated hydroxytoluene >
2-ethylhexyl nitrate.
 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169
It was found that with the increase in the concentration of the
antioxidant additive, the oxidation stability increased. The higher
concentration of the antioxidant led to increased stability, so the
higher concentrated antioxidant of 1000 ppm with B20 was used
as fuel to test the emission characteristics. With the increase in
the engine speed, the NOx was found to be decreasing. The oxygen
content in the biodiesel led to increase in NOx. The presence of
antioxidation catalyst in the blend reduced the formation of NOx.
With the increase in the engine speed, CO increased. It was found
that CO was lower between 2200 rpm and 3800 rpm and with the
increase or decrease of engine-speed, CO increased. 20% canola oil
biodiesel -80% diesel had a lesser CO than diesel because of the
presence of the oxygen in biodiesel.
Nayak and Pattanaik [57] carried out their experiments using a
single cylinder, direct injection, constant speed C.I engine. Mahua
oil biodiesel and its blends with dimethyl carbonate in different
volume ratios were used a fuel. The performance and emission
characteristics were compared with diesel. Diesel has a higher
BTE than biodiesel because of better fuel properties. The fuel prop-
erty of biodiesel was improved by adding Dimethyl carbonate with
Mahua oil biodiesel. 15% of dimethyl carbonate with biodiesel pro-
duced BTE closer to diesel. The engine achieved its maximum BTE
at 80% load, Irrespective of the fuel used. The mahua oil biodiesel
100% had a higher BSFC than other fuels used for this experiment.
It was because of the lower calorific value, lower volatility, higher
density, and viscosity of mahua oil biodiesel. With increase in the
percentage of dimethyl carbonate (additive), the BSFC decreased
because of the decrease in viscosity and improvement in volatility.
For all the fuels used, with the increase in load, EGT increased. Due
to the presence of oxygen content in biodiesel, the combustion
temperature was higher. This led to higher EGT of 430 °C for bio-
diesel, whereas diesel produced EGT of 320 °C at full load condi-
tions. Diesel produced the lowest EGT of 320 °C at full load
condition. For all the blends used in the experiment, HC increased
with the increase in load. The combustion of Mahua oil biodiesel
was not only better than diesel but also than all other test fuels
used for this experiment. So, it produced a lower HC than the test
fuel and diesel. With the increase in the percentage of dimethyl
carbonate, the HC emission reduced and reached close to pure
biodiesel.
Irrespective of the fuel used for the experiment, the NOx
increased with increase in load. It is known that the NOx is directly
proportional to the power; so, irrespective of the fuel used for the
experiment, NOx increased with increase in load. The pure form of
biodiesel produced higher NOx than diesel and other test fuels.
Because of the presence of oxygen, better combustion took place,
and it led to peak temperature; with the increase in the percentage
of additive (dimethyl carbonate), NOx reduced.
To reduce the pollution and to enhance the performance of a six
cylinder, direct injection diesel engine, Mirzajanzadeh et al. [58]
used biodiesel–diesel and cerium oxide nano particles-amides
functional groups (CeO2-MWCNTs). The engine used here was a
variable speed engine, but the experiment was conducted at
1500 rpm at full load.
The biodiesel used for this experiment was prepared from
waste cooked oil.
The different ratios of the blend used were
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 5%–Diesel 95%,
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 5%–Diesel 95%–CeO2-MWCNTs
30 ppm,
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 5%–Diesel 95%–CeO2-MWCNTs
60 ppm,
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 5%–Diesel 95%–CeO2-MWCNTs
90 ppm,
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 80%,
163
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 80%–CeO2-MWCNTs
30 ppm,
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 80%–CeO2-MWCNTs
60 ppm and
Waste cooked oil Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 80%–CeO2-MWCNTs
90 ppm.
With the increase in the concentration of the CeO2-MWCNTs,
the power increased. The blend of waste cooked oil biodiesel
20%-diesel 80%–CeO2-MWCNTs 90 ppm produced the highest
power of 165.7 kW, and the blend with waste cooked oil biodiesel
20%–diesel 80% produced the lowest power, 53.7 kW.
It is known that the torque is directly proportional to the power
and so the torque output has a similar trend to the power. The
blend with 20% biodiesel produced higher power and torque than
the blend with 5% of biodiesel. The BSFC for B5 was higher than
the B20 additives.
Increasing the concentration of the cerium oxide reduced HC,
CO, and soot, whereas NOx increased. Due to the presence of oxy-
gen content in cerium oxide, the combustion quality improved;
so, complete combustion took place. Cerium oxide prevented the
precipitation of non-polar components, carbon and iron deposits.
HC, CO, and engine friction reduced, whereas torque and power
are increased while using cerium oxide with biodiesel.
Controlling HC, CO, and NOx at the same time was difficult
because HC and CO are produced due to lower combustion temper-
ature but NOx is produced at higher combustion temperature. Cer-
ium oxide is capable of providing oxygen for the combustion, and it
also absorbs oxygen after it provides the oxygen it had. During the
combustion process, cerium oxide provides oxygen for combus-
tion, so CO and HC are oxidized. Then oxygen in the combustion
chamber is obsorbed by cerium oxide, thus preventing the forma-
tion of NOx.
3.4. Biodiesel-nano paricles
Shaafi and Velraj [12] conducted an experiment in a single
cylinder constant speed C.I engine fueled with blends of soybean
biodiesel 20%–diesel 80%. The second blend consisted of a mixture
of 80% diesel, 15% soybean biodiesel, 4% ethanol, and 1% iso-
propanol as a surfactant, and alumina nanoparticles of 100 mg/L
and the performance and emission characteristics were compared
with diesel.
With the increase in the load, the BTE increased for all the fuels.
Blending of biodiesel with the diesel increased the BTE. It was
because of the oxygen content in the biodiesel. The blend with alu-
minum nano particles had higher BTE of about 27% and the diesel
produced the BTE of about 24%. The blend of aluminum nano par-
ticles had higher BTE because aluminum nano particles create
micro explosion and improve the evaporation rate of the fuel. Pure
diesel had the highest BSFC of about 0.35 kg/kW h, and the fuel
with 80% diesel + 15% soybean biodiesel + 4% ethanol + 1% iso-
propanol + alumina nanoparticles of 100 mg/L had BSFC of about
0.32 kg/kW h. The BSFC for the fuel with aluminum nano particles
is less because it enhanced the combustion quality. The fuel with
aluminum nano particles produced higher NOx by 9.9% than neat
diesel at full load condition. At full load condition, for the blend
of aluminum nano particles, CO is less by 40% when compared
withbiodiesel blend and pure diesel. The heat released from the
fuel with biodiesel blend and fuel with nano particles was higher
than diesel, so NOx was higher than in diesel. The blends of etha-
nol–diesel had higher UBHC than diesel because some of the fuel
got involved in the combustion process without evaporation. The
fuel with aluminum nano particles increased the surface area of
the fuel, so UBHC was less than the fuel without aluminum nano
particles. EGT increased with the increase in load because at higher
164 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169
loads more fuel was injected so the EGT was higher. With the pres-
ence of aluminum nano particles, EGT decreased because the heat
transfer coefficient was improved by aluminum nano particles.
3.5. Animal fat biodiesel
Barrios et al. [13] conducted performance and emission charac-
teristics using a turbocharged, four cylinder, two liter C.I engine
fueled with different blends of animal fat biodiesel–diesel and soy-
bean biodiesel. Diesel was used as a base fuel for comparing the
performance and emission characteristics. It was observed that
diesel had the lowest SFC and with the increase in the percentage
of biodiesel in the blend SFC increased. It was because of the higher
density and lower calorific fuel of the biodiesel. The SFC for the
blend of animal fat biodiesel 50%–diesel 50% was higher than die-
sel because of the higher viscosity of the animal fat.
Increase in the percentage of EGR caused reduction in the NOx.
To attain the engine speed more than 2178 rpm, the EGR had to be
reduced, so this increased the NOx at higher speed. Due to the les-
ser calorific value of biodiesel, the electronic system does not allow
the EGR. So, this is one of the reasons for higher NOx for biodiesel
than with diesel.
3.6. Used vegetable oil biodiesel
Roy et al. [53] investigated the performance and emission
characteristics of four stroke, direct injection, variable speed, C.I
engine with swept volume of 1318 cc fueled with biodiesel–diesel
and canola oil–diesel blends. For all the speeds, with the increase
in the percentage of biodiesel and canola oil in the blend, BSFC
increased. With increase in the speed of the engine, BSFC
decreased for diesel, oil blends and biodiesel blends. With a blend
of canola oil biodiesel 20%–diesel 80%, BSFC was higher by 1.1%
than the neat diesel. Canola oil biodiesel 20%–diesel 80% blend
had 2.55% lesser calorific value than diesel, but the BSFC of canola
oil biodiesel 20%–diesel 80% blend was less than that of diesel.
This indicated that the fuel conversion rate was higher than die-
sel. With the increase in the engine speeds, the percentage of the
fuel conversion efficiency increased for all the fuel used in this
research. Diesel had the lesser fuel conversion efficiency than
canola oil biodiesel 20%–diesel and canola oil 20%–diesel blend
because the biodiesel and oil had oxygen content, and so better
combustion took place.
For all the fuels used in this research, with the increase in the
engine speed, HC emission decreased. It was because of the better
mixing of air and fuel at higher speeds. Due to the presence of oxy-
gen in biodiesel, for all the engine speeds, with the increase in the
percentage of canola oil biodiesel in the blend and used-canola oil
biodiesel in the blend, HC emission decreased. Irrespective of the
test fuels used, here, with the increase in the engine speed, CO
decreased. It was because, at higher speeds, the turbulence
increased and so better air–fuel mixture took place. Due to the
presence of oxygen content in the biodiesel, with the increase in
the percentage of the used canola oil biodiesel, the CO decreased.
3.7. Biodiesel–water blend
Koc and Abdullah [54] studied the performance and emission
characteristics of a four cylinder inline, naturally aspired, water
cooled, variable speed C.I engine fueled with biodiesel–diesel–wa
ter nano emulsions.
Deionized water were used for emulsion; anionic surfactant,
AOT (Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate) and 10.2 hydrophilic-
lipophilic balance (HLB) was used as an additive to form emulsion.
The biodiesel used here was obtained from the transesterification
process of soybean oil.
The fuels used for the test purpose were:
Surfactant 7.5%–soybean oil Biodiesel 17.5%–water 5%–Diesel
70%;
Surfactant 7.5%–soybean oil Biodiesel 17.5%–water 10%–Diesel
65%;
Surfactant 7.5%–soybean oil Biodiesel 17.5%–water 15%–Diesel
60%;
Soybean oil Biodiesel 5%–Diesel 95%;
Soybean oil Biodiesel 20%–Diesel 80%; and
Diesel 100%
Power for all the fuels used in the test purpose was maximum at
2000 rpm. The water emulsion with biodiesel and diesel reduced
the power; increase in the percentage of the water in the emulsion
further reduced the power of the engine because the heating value
of biodiesel and surfactant was less than diesel. The maximum tor-
que was obtained at 1800 rpm. With increase in the percentage of
water in the emulsion, the torque decreased. Diesel produced the
maximum torque. For most speeds, blends of soybean biodiesel
5% and 20% produced same torque.
Diesel has a lower BSFC than the biodiesel and fuel with nano
emulsion. With the increase in the percentage of water, BSFC
increased. For most engine-speed ranges, the fuel with nano emul-
sion had the highest BSFC, and it was higher than biodiesel. It was
because the calorific value of biodiesel and its emulsion with water
is lesser than diesel. For most engine speed ranges, the BSFCs for
Surfactant 7.5%–soybean oil biodiesel 17.5%–water 5%–diesel 70%
and soybean oil biodiesel 20%–diesel 80% almost were similar.
The NOx emission for diesel and surfactant 7.5%–soybean oil bio-
diesel 17.5%–water 5%–diesel 70% was almost closer at most
speeds. With the increase in the percentage of biodiesel in the
blend, NOx increased, and with the increase in the percentage of
the water in the emulsion, the NOx decreased. It was because the
oxygen content in the biodiesel led to higher combustion temper-
ature and the water content in the emulsion reduced the peak tem-
perature of the combustion. With the increase in the engine speed,
irrespective of the fuel used, CO2 emission decreased. With the
increase in the percentage of the water content in the emulsion,
the CO2 increased. It was because of the presence of higher oxygen
content in the water emulsion fuel than in diesel and biodiesel. The
biodiesel blend produced lower CO2 than diesel. Irrespective of the
fuel, CO emission decreased with the engine speed. Diesel pro-
duced the highest CO, whereas surfactant 7.5%–soybean oil biodie-
sel 17.5%–water 5%–diesel 70% produced the lowest CO compared
with the other fuels.
3.8. Microalga biodiesel
Tüccar and Aydın [56] conducted an experiment using 3970 cc
engine, direct injection with glow plug,variable speed C.I engine
and blends of microalgae biodiesel–diesel and diesel as a fuel.
The performance and emission characteristics were compared.
The blend ratios used for the test purpose were B5, B10, B20,
B50, and B100. Irrespective of the blends used in this experiment,
the maximum brake power was obtained at 2400 rpm. Power
reduction increased with increase in the percentage of biodiesel
in the blend, and it was because of the lower cetane number of
the biodiesel. Irrespective of the fuel, increase in the percentage
of the micro alga in the blends reduced the torque, whereas diesel
produced the highest torque of about 236 Nm, and the lowest tor-
que was produced by 100% microalga biodiesel, which was about
227 Nm. For all the engine-speeds, CO emission for micro alga
was lower than for diesel. During the time of combustion, oxygen
present in the micro alga reacted with CO to produce CO2, so the
CO emission for the micro alga biodiesel was less than diesel. For
 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169
all the speeds of the engine, NOx emission for micro alga was lower
than for diesel. In most cases, the usage of biodiesel increased the
amount of NOx due to the presence of inbuilt oxygen content. In
contrast to other authors in this experiment, the presence of oxy-
gen in the microalga biodiesel reduced the NOx emission. It’s
because oxygen involvement from the atmosphere is reduced. So,
the NOx produced during micro alga biodiesel was less than diesel
and heat release rate for micro alga biodiesel was also mentioned
as the reason for less NOx than diesel.
4. Performance and emission characteristics of modified C.I
engine fueled with biodiesel and its blend
4.1. Modified injection pressure, nozzle hole size and injection timing
Metin Gumus et al. used biodiesel with different blend ratios
such as B0, B5, B20, B50, B100 in a single cylinder C.I engine. Dif-
ferent injection pressures such as 180 bar, 200 bar, 220 bar, and
240 bar were used. The engine used here was a constant speed
engine, so the load could be changed and the performance and
emission characteristics were measured. With the increase in
injection pressure and increase in percentage of biodiesel in the
blend, the emission of CO got reduced. The increased I.P reduced
the fuel droplet size, so a better mixing took place and this led to
better oxygen availability and subsequently to CO reduction. As
the injection pressure was increased, the unburned hydrocarbons
decreased, and with increase in the percentage of biodiesel in the
blend, HC increased the amount of hydrocarbon produced for dif-
ferent blends; for B5, B20, B50, and B100, the HC emissions were
5.71%, 9.21%, 16.04% and 27.30%, respectively. The presence of oxy-
gen in biodiesel led to higher combustion temperature, so NOx was
higher than for diesel, and with increase in the blend ratio of bio-
diesel, NOx increased. The increase in injection pressure increased
the NOx [3].
Sayin and Gumus [7] carried out experiments with a single
cylinder C.I engine. They had operated the engine at different injec-
tion pressures such as 180 bar, 200 bar, and 220 bar, at different
injecting timings such as 15°, 20°, 25° crank angle before Top dead
center and different compression ratios, viz., 17:1, 18:1, and 19:1.
The fuels used were different blend ratios of biodiesel such as B5,
B20, B50, and B100. It was found that the injection pressure of
220 bar produced the optimum output among 180 bar, 200 bar,
220 bar. With the increase in compression ratio, NOx increased,
and with the increase in the percentage of biodiesel in the blend,
NOx increased, to the presence of oxygen in biodiesel; this
increased the combustion quality and cylinder temperature.
Advancing the injection timing led to an increase in ignition delay,
because of the lower cylinder temperature at that particular time.
This long ignition delay increased the combustion quantity of fuel
inside the cylinder, so the cylinder temperature increased and NOx
increased. The droplet size was reduced with higher injection pres-
sure. Increasing injection pressure to 220 bar from 200 bar
decreased HC by 0.30%. Decreasing injection pressure from200 bar
to 180 bar increased HC by 2.73%. As the compression ratio
increased, the hydrocarbon decreased. CO produced at injection
pressure of 180 bar for B5, B20, B50, and B100 was 11.23%,
13.96%, 19.13%, and 19.99%, respectively. The reduction of CO with
increase in the percentage of biodiesel in the blend was due to the
availability of oxygen in biodiesel. At a lower compression ratio,
the heat produced due to compression was less when compared
with higher compression ratio. Due to that, the combustion was
poor at lower compression ratio,and so CO increased. As the injec-
tion pressure increased, the CO and BSFC decrease. For all the injec-
tion pressures and the compression ratio with increases in the
percentage of biodiesel led to increases in the BSFC. It was because
165
of the lesser C.V. As the compression ratio increased, the combus-
tion chamber temperature increased. This resulted in complete
combustion, and hence, BSFC decreased. As the injection pressure
increased, the BSFC decreased because of improved atomization
and better mixing. With the increase in the percentage of biodiesel
in the blend, BTE increased because of higher combustion quality
and higher lubricity.
Subramaniam et al. [8] reviewed vegetable oil and different
methods of oil treatment for using in IC engine and gave a number
of suggestions. Preheating the vegetable oil to 55 degree centigrade
reduced the viscosity almost equal to that of diesel. Blend of 50% of
jatropha oil with diesel could be used for short term without any
difficulty. While using the blend of 50% coconut oil–50% diesel,
reduction in HC, smoke, exhaust temperature, CO, and NOx could
be observed. This was because of the presence of oxygen content
in coconut oil. For jatropha methyl esters, BSFC for B100 was
higher than for B20 by 25–34% and NOx remained the same even
after the injection pressure increased. For koroch oil methy ester,
the BTE was found to be 25.63%, 24.86%, 24.34%, 24.09% and
22.32% for B0, B10, B20, B30 and B40, respectively. Increasing the
percentage of biodiesel in the blend decreased the BTE because
calorific value of koroch oil methyl ester was less than that of die-
sel. The viscosity and density of koroch oil methyl ester, higher
than those of diesel, led to less BTE and higher BSFC than diesel.
In direct usage of hone oil in C.I engine, the BTE got reduced to
4.19% than diesel with increased CO, HC, smoke opacity and
decreased NOx. For neem oil methyl ester blend of B40, the BTE
was higher by 1.5% than for B100. When biodiesel was used in
low heat rejection engines, in most cases, BTE and NOx increased,
whereas SFC, HC, and CO decreased compared with the conven-
tional engine.
Kuti et al. [15] analyzed the spray characteristics and combus-
tion process of palm oil biodiesel using Diesel engine common rail
system. Three different pressures of 100 Mpa, 200 Mpa and
300 Mpa were used, and two different nozzle hole sizes of
0.16 mm and 0.08 mm were used. The test was conducted at real
time engine condition with cylinder nitrogen density of 15 kg/m3
and inert nitrogen being used to simulate the condition. With the
reduction in the nozzle size, the length of the liquid phase
decreased. For both diesel and palm oil biodiesel, the evaporation
characteristics were better for higher injection pressure, but it
had less influence than the nozzle size and the liquid phase was
significantly reduced by decreasing the nozzle diameter of
0.08 mm from 0.16 mm. The boiling point of biodiesel higher than
that of diesel led to lower volatility; so, at all the injection pres-
sures, the liquid phase of the palm oil bio diesel was higher than
diesel. The oxygen content in the biodiesel was about 11–15% by
weight, which improved the combustion quality and reduced the
pollution. For both biodiesel and diesel, with the increase in the
hole size of the injector, the ignition delay increased, and for
the increase in the injection pressure to 300Mpa, the velocity of
the injected fuel increased and the auto ignition time reduced.
At the same condition of injection pressure and hole size, the
ignition delay for palm oil biodiesel was less than diesel because
of the presence of oxygen content in biodiesel and the higher
cetane number of the palm oil biodiesel than diesel.
Isaac JoshuaRamesh Lalvani et al. [5,55,63] studied the effect of
injection pressure variation of the turbulence inducer piston and
convention piston with diesel and 20% blend of adelfa biodiesel.
They conducted the experiment by varying the injection pressure
from 180, 210, 220 and 230 bar, and their results were compared
and analyzed with standard injection pressure of 200 bar. Their
results showed that HC, CO, and smoke intensity reduced signifi-
cantly for modified piston with the blend of 20% adelfa biodiesel
with 80% diesel. With increased injection pressure, due to the pres-
ence of oxygen in the blend, NOX emissions increased. They also
166 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169
observed a fall in brake specific fuel consumption in the brake ther-
mal efficiency for modified piston with the blend of 20% adelfa bio-
diesel with 80% diesel; it was due to better air enhancement and
fuel air mixing.
4.2. EGR and SCR
Solaimuthu et al. [16] conducted an experiment with single
cylinder, constant speed C.I engine fueled with mahua oil biodie-
sel and its blends such as B0, B25, B50, B75, and B100. To reduce
the exhaust emission, various techniques such as selective cat-
alytic reduction, hot exhaust recirculation and cold exhaust recir-
culation were done. The engine was always operated at full load
condition. The performance and emission characteristics were
compared with those of the conventional C.I engine. The biodiesel
had lower calorific value and higher density than diesel. To ana-
lyze the combustion quality, the brake thermal efficiency was
given more importance than the specific fuel consumption. For
mahua oil, the cetane number, flash point and fire point were
comparatively higher than diesel. To reduce NOx emission, EGR
technique was followed. EGR reduced the peak temperature of
the cylinder which obviously reduced the NOx; on the other hand,
the reduction in the peak temperature led to an increase in the
soot emission which significantly increased carbon deposition,
degradation rate of lubricating oil and engine wear. The fire point
of the biodiesel was higher when compared with diesel, so the
volatility of the biodiesel was less than diesel. It was found that
an increase in the percentage of biodiesel in the blend increased
the BSFC for both EGR and SCR conditions. The pure diesel has
less SFC than all the mahua oil biodiesel blends. The method
using SCR had higher SFC than the conventional engine and
EGR technique because of the back pressure created in the tail
pipe due to SCR. The hot EGR had a lower BSFC than the other
technique. The BTE decreased with the increase in the percentage
of biodiesel in the blend for all the techniques followed for the
reduction of exhaust also in the conventional engine. Except back
pressure in the SCR, the working is very similar to the conven-
tional engine, but the EGR reduced the peak temperature and
so the BTE reduced. The BTEs for B0 and B25 were almost equal,
but not for B50 and B100. The BTE for B100 was significantly
lower than B50 because of the lower calorific value of biodiesel.
The heat release rate decreased with the increase in the percent-
age of biodiesel. Almost EGR, SCR and conventional engine gave
the same heat release rate. Most researchers had reported that
the smoke decreased with the increase in the percentage of bio-
diesel in the blend, but in the current research, it was reported
that the smoke increased with the increase in the percentage of
biodiesel. It was because of the worn out engine being used
and the mixing of the lubricating oil in the biodiesel. Because of
the closer density of B0 and B25, and the higher cetane number
of B25 than diesel, smoke density was less than all the blends.
The conventional engine produced lower CO2 when compared
with the other techniques. With the increase in the percentage
of the biodiesel in the blend, HC decreased. It was because the
cetane number increased with the increase in the percentage of
biodiesel. Among all the three methods (SCR, CER and conven-
tional), at full load with 100% biodiesel CER method produced
the maximum HC. SCR technique produced a lower NOx than
the other techniques and the conventional engine. The oxides of
nitrogen were effectively reduced by ammonia which was formed
as a result of conversion of urea into ammonia through decompo-
sition process. For B100, at full load condition, 19.23% of NOx was
reduced when compared with conventional engine. B25 with SCR
was found to be the best way to use mahua oil biodiesel for less
emission and optimum efficiency.
4.3. H.C.C.I engine
Singh et al. [17] carried out experiment using two cylinder C.I
engine, where one cylinder was operated on HCCI engine mode
and the other was operated on the conventional mode. The HCCI
engine was operated under different blends of biodiesel such as
B20 and B40, and the controlling of HCCI engine was done using
different proportions of engine EGR conditions such as 0%, 15%
and 30%.
The air fuel ratios used here ranged between 5.6 and 2.7. With
the increase in the percentage of biodiesel blend for HCCI engine,
the rate of heat release was reduced. With the increase in the per-
centage of biodiesel in the blend, the peak pressure was reduced,
but it shifted towards ATDC, and the performance of the HCCI
engine while using biodiesel was higher than the Diesel HCCI
engine.
For HCCI engine operation, with the increase in the percentage
of EGR, the air fuel mixture got diluted, and so the heat release rate
was decreased but the exhaust temperature increased.
For HCCI engine operation, the exhaust gas temperature
reduced with the increase in the percentage of biodiesel. With
the decrease in the air fuel ratio, the exhaust temperature
increased.
In HCCI engine operation, the indicated thermal efficiency
decreased with the increase in the exhaust gas recirculation for
diesel and B20, but it’s reversed for B40. With the increase in the
percentage of biodiesel, the indicated efficiency decreased.
In HCCI engine operation, with the increase in the percentage of
biodiesel, CO decreased, and with the increase in the air fuel ratio,
CO decreased for both diesel and biodiesel blends.
NOx significantly reduced for all modes of operation for all the
fuels with the increase in EGR. The lower calorific value of biodiesel
blends led to lower heat release rate and lower cylinder tempera-
ture, so NOx was lower for biodiesel on the HCCI mode.
4.4. Thermal barrier coated C.I engine
Selman et al. [59] used waste cooked oil biodiesel–diesel blends
as a fuel for a single cylinder four stroke C.I engine, and its perfor-
mance and emission characteristics were analyzed. Diesel was
used as a base line fuel for comparing the performance and emis-
sion characteristics for both coated and uncoated engines. The
blend ratios used were B20 and B50. Engine modifications were
done by coating with two different sets of minerals in the piston
and the valves. Performance and emission characteristics were
compared by different modes such as engine without modification,
piston and valve coated with 100 lm of NiCrAl as lining layer and
finally piston and cylinder coated with 400 lm material of coating
that was the mixture of 88% of ZrO2, 4% of MgO, and 8% of Al2O
being used with the above mentioned fuels.
With the increase in engine speed, the engine power increased
for all the fuels in both the conditions, i.e., with and without mod-
ification of engine. With increase in the percentage of biodiesel in
the blend, the power decreased. The power was higher for coated
engine than the uncoated one. This was because the heat transfer
for the uncoated engine was higher than for the coated engines
so the heat loss was minimized in case of coated engine.
For biodiesel, the BSFC was higher than for diesel fuel. When
comparing the coated engine and uncoated engine, the BSFC for
coated one was lower because of the heat lost to the cylinder head
and the piston head.
The highest BTE was obtained at the rpm of 1800 for all the
fuels. The coated engine had higher efficiency than the uncoated
engine by 3.57%, 2.83%, and 3.26%, for diesel, B20 and B50, respec-
tively. The insulation of the coating reduced the heat loss, so the
thermal efficiency was increased.
 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169 167

Diesel produced less EGT than the blends of biodiesel. For both
coated and uncoated engine, the EGT increased with the increase in
speed. The engine with ceramic coating produced higher EGT com-
pared with the uncoated engine.
Increase in the percentage of biodiesel caused the CO to
decrease, and the blends of biodiesel produced less CO compared
with diesel. Due to the presence of oxygen in biodiesel, the CO
emission was reduced and it was less than diesel because the
source of CO lacked oxygen. On comparing the coated and
uncoated engines, the ceramic coated engine produced less CO
by 8.86%, 8.31% and 6.47% for Diesel, B20 and B50 respectively.
This was because the combustion in the coated engine produced
higher temperature, so that the combustion could take place even
in the late phase, and the CO was combusted to CO2 during this
late phase. Due to the presence of oxygen content and higher
cetane number in the biodiesel, the HC for both coated and
uncoated engines decreased compared with diesel. The two main
reasons mentioned by the authors for the formation of NOx were
that: (a) The combustion temperature was higher than 1600 °C
and (b) the higher interaction time of nitrogen with oxygen in
the high temperature. With the increase in the percentage of bio-
diesel in the blend, NOx increased. The NOx produced in the
coated engine was higher when compared with the uncoated
Fig. 1. TGA curve of Pongammia Pinnata oil.
engine [29].

5. Advantages of biodiesel

(1) Biodiesel is a renewable energy source, and it is available in

a wide range in most parts of the world.
(2) HC, CO, particulate, soot and sulfur emissions are less while
using diesel.
(3) Most biodiesel and biodiesel–blends with diesel can be used
in conventional engines without major modifications.
(4) The viscosity of biodiesel improves the lubrication, so the
life time of engine increases.
(5) Since the flash and the fire point of most of the biodiesel
forms are higher than those of diesel, they are safer to
handle.
(6) Biodiesel is a carbon neutral fuel.
(7) Octane number of biodiesel is higher than that of diesel.

6. Disadvantages of biodiesel

1. Due to the presence of oxygen in biodiesel, the fuel line may

get corroded.
2. Presence of oxygen in biodiesel reduces calorific value of the
fuel, but on the other hand, oxygen presence improves the
combustion property.
3. In most cases, the use of biodiesel increases NOx. Additives
can be used to reduce the NOx. Fig. 2. DSC curve of Pongammia Pinnata oil.
4. Biodiesel produced from different crops have different phys-
ical and chemical characteristics, so the engine should be
designed in such a way as to operate in this range. 11. Biodiesel is less stable than diesel. Biodiesel gets oxidized
5. It requires energy to harvest, transport the harvested seeds easily; so, to reduce oxidation process, antioxidant has to
and extract oil from the seeds, and, during biodiesel produc- be mixed, and this makes the fuel costlier.
tion, heating is done for which energy is required too. 12. Special fuel supply line material has to be manufactured
6. The byproduct glycerol formed during production pollutes because biodiesel with the conventional material like rubber
the environment. gets corroded and reacts with the metals and corrodes the
7. The waste water with catalyst used for washing the biodie- fuel line.
sel pollutes the environment.
8. Most biodiesel forms have less calorific value than diesel, so 7. Thermal cracking
biodiesel mostly produces less torque, less power and higher
BSFC. Thermal cracking is a proven method for power and thermal
9. In most cases, NOx emission is higher than diesel. applications. Pyrolysis and Gasification are thermo chemical con-
10. Pour point of most biodiesel forms is higher than that of die- version process. Temperature and heating rate have prominent
sel, so it makes it less feasible to be used in colder region. effects on the weight loss of biomass. Thermo gravimetric analysis
168 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169
(TGA) gives the plot showing loss in weight of the sample biomass
Vs temperature. The heating rate can be changed according to the
requirement. In addition to that the environment gas in which the
biomass heated can be changed and the experiment can be done
with and without the flow of the gas. Characteristics of kinetic
parameters and pyrolysis can also be studied using TGA. Kinetic
of biomass are calculated using the TGA curve were the complex
chemical reactions were not taken into account.
From the earlier review it has been found that the Biodiesel for
IC engine is giving same performance as well as better emission
characteristics. However the cost of biodiesel production and the
by products from this process is not encouraging. Hence this paper
further reviews on the feasibility of thermal cracking as substitute
for biodiesel production. TGA (Fig. 1) and DSC (Fig. 2) study on Pun-
gamia Pinata Oil reported [64] has shown that thermal cracking is
found be best method for admitting Vegetable Oil to IC engine also
TGA reported shows that a critical weight reduction at 350 °C and
DSC shows that an exothermic peak at 350 °C. This study reveled
that at a 350 °C the Pungamia Oil is converted into gas phase. Based
on the report a experimental study has been carried out by heating
the oil at 350 °C without admitting air and directly admitting the
gas to the IC engine. The engine has been successfully operated
at various load conditions.
8. Conclusion
(1) The calorific value of biodiesel is less than mineral diesel of
about 10% on volume and 15% on mass basis.
(2) Almost all forms of biodiesel and their blends with diesel
have higher viscosity than diesel. Due to the higher viscosity
of biodiesel, the atomization property may be affected and
the combustion efficiency get reduced, but biodiesel acts
as a lubricator; so, it improves the mechanical efficiency.
(3) Biodiesel has higher cetane number than diesel, so the igni-
tion delay for biodiesel will be less than diesel. Due to the
less ignition delay of biodiesel than diesel, accumulation of
the fuel inside the cylinder is reduced, so vibration and
knocking is reduced. The higher cetane number also reduces
the UBHC produced during the injection of fuel before the
starting of the combustion.
(4) Lower calorific value, lower volatility, higher density, and
viscosity of biodiesel reduce combustion quality.
(5) In most cases, exhaust gas temperature of the engine is less
while using biodiesel.
(6) Since the calorific value of biodiesel is less than mineral die-
sel in most cases, the BSFC for biodiesel is higher than diesel.
(7) The presence of oxygen content in biodiesel improves the
combustion quality, so this leads to increase in NOx.
(8) In most cases, CO emission for biodiesel is less than diesel.
(9) Blending of water containing acetone-butanol-ethanol with
biodiesel would be a good idea to reduce NOx and particulate
matter which is considered as the main problem while using
biodiesel.
(10) To reduce NOx, ethanol can be injected in the inlet manifold
or blend with biodiesel.
(11) It has been stated by many researchers that biodiesel can be
used in the conventional engine without modification.
(12) Increase in the injection pressure while using biodiesel as
fuel in C.I engine decreases UBHC.
(13) Increase in compression ratio while using biodiesel as fuel
decreases UBHC.
(14) The presence of oxygen content in the biodiesel reduces CO
emission.
(15) Usage of biodiesel in low heat rejection engines increases
BTE and NOx, whereas SFC, UBHC, and CO decreases when
compared with the conventional engines.
(16) Antioxidant catalysts such as tert-butyl hydroquinone, buty-
lated hydroxyanisole, butylated hydroxytoluene and 2-
ethylhexylnitrate with biodiesel improve stability and
reduce NOx emission.
(17) Exhaust gas recirculation or selective catalytic recirculation
can be used to reduce NOx while using biodiesel as fuel in
C.I engine.
(18) Usage of biodiesel in HCCI engine produces less CO than
diesel.
(19) In most cases, biodiesel produces less torque and power than
mineral diesel, because of less calorific value of biodiesel
than diesel.
(20) Engine with thermal barrier coating fueled with biodiesel–
diesel blends produces higher BTE than the conventional
engine.
(21) Biodiesel cost of production and the by products makes this
process as not a substitute for the IC engine.
(22) TGA & DCS Characteristics of Pungamia Pinata Oil shows that
Thermal cracking is an alternate to Biodiesel production
(23) The preliminary experimental investigation on thermal
cracking of vegetable oil and admitting to IC engine shows
encouraging results.
References
[1] Lapuerta Magin, Armas Octavio, Rodriguez-Fernandez Jose. Effect of biodiesel
fuels on diesel engine emissions. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2008;34:198–223.
[2] Aydin Huseyin, Ilkilic Cumali. Effect of ethanol blending with Biodiesel on
engine performance and exhaust emission in a CI engine. Appl Therm Eng
2010;30:1199–204.
[3] Gumus Metin, Sayin Cenk, Canakci Mustafa. The impact of fuel injection
pressure on the exhaust emission of a direct injection Diesel engine fueled
with Biodiesel–Diesel fuel. Fuel 2012;95:486–94.
[4] Ilkilic Cumali, Aydin Huseyin. Determination of performance and exhaust
emission properties of B75 in a CI engine application. Fuel Process Technol
2011;92:1790–5.
[5] Isaac JoshuaRamesh Lalvani J, Parthasarathy M, Dhinesh B, Annamalai K.
Pooled effect of injection pressure and turbulence inducer piston on
performance, combustion, and emission characteristics of a DI diesel engine
powered with biodiesel blend. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2015. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.08.020.
[6] Rakopoulos CD, Rakopoulos DC, Hountalas DT, Giakoumis EG, Andritsakis EC.
Performance and emission of bus engine using blends of Diesel fuel with
Biodiesel of sunflower or cottonseed oils derived from Greek feed Stock. Fuel
2008;87:147–57.
[7] Sayin Cenk, Gumus Metin. Impact of compression ratio and injection
parameters on the performance and emission of a DI Diesel engine fueled
with Biodiesel–blended Diesel fuel. Appl Therm Eng 2011;31:3182–8.
[8] Subramaniam D, Murugesan A, Avinash A, Kumaravel A. Bio-Diesel production
and its engine Characteristics – an expatiate view. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;22:361–70.
[9] Chang Yu-Cheng, Lee Wen-Jhy, Wu Tser Son, Wu Chang-Yu, Chen Shui-Jen. Use
of water containing acetone-butanol-ethanol for NOx-PM (nitrogen oxide-
particulate matter) trade-off in the Diesel engine Fueled with Biodiesel. Energy
2014;64:678–87.
[10] Ferreira Vitor Pinheiro, Martins Jorge, Torres Ednildo Andrade, Pepe Iuri
Muniz, Ramos De Souza João MS. Performance and emissions analysis of
additional ethanol injection on a Diesel engine powered with A blend of
Diesel–Biodiesel. Energy Sustain Devel 2013;17:649–57.
[11] Rashedul HK, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Ashraful AM, Ashrafur Rahman SM,
Shahir SA. The effect of additives on properties, performance and emission of
Biodiesel fuelled compression ignition engine. Energy Convers Manage
2014;88:348–64.
[12] Shaafi T, Velraj R. Influence of alumina nano particles, ethanol and isopropanol
blend as additive with Diesel–soybean Biodiesel blend fuel: combustion,
engine performance and emissions. Renewable Energy 2015;80:655–63.
[13] Barrios Carmen C, Domínguez-Sáez Aida, Martín Carlos, Álvarez Paloma.
Effects of animal fat based Biodiesel on a TDI Diesel engine performance,
combustion characteristics and particle number and size distribution
emissions. Fuel 2014;117:618–23.
[14] Ileri Erol, Kocar Gunnur. Experimental investigation of the effect of antioxidant
additives on NOx Emissions of a Diesel engine using Biodiesel. Fuel
2014;125:44–9.
[15] Kuti Olawole Abiola, Zhu Jingyu, Nishida Keiya, Wang Xiangang, Huang
Zuohua. Characterization of spray and combustion processes of Biodiesel fuel
injected By Diesel engine common rail system. Fuel 2013;104:838–46.
 S. Ramkumar, V. Kirubakaran / Energy Conversion and Management 118 (2016) 155–169
[16] Solaimuthu C, Ganesan V, Senthilkumar D, Ramasamy KK. Emission reductions
studies of a Biodiesel engine using EGR and SCR for agriculture operations in
developing countries. Appl Energy 2015;138:91–8.
[17] Singh Gajendra, Singh Akhilendra Pratap, Agarwal Avinash Kumar.
Experimental investigations of combustion, performance and emission
characterization of Biodiesel fuelled HCCI engine using external mixture
formation technique. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2014;6:116–28.
[18] Muralidharan K, Vasudevan D, Sheeba KN. Performance, emission and
combustion characteristics of Biodiesel fuelled variable compression ratio
engine. Energy 2011;36:5385–93.
[19] Yilmaz Nadir, Vigil Francisco M, Benalil Kyle, Davis Stephen M, Calva Antonio.
Effect of Biodiesel–butanol fuel blends on emissions and performance
characteristics of a Diesel engine. Fuel 2014;135:46–50.
[20] Sahoo PK, Das LM, Babu MKG, Naik SN. Biodiesel development from high acid
value polanga seed oil and performance evaluation in a CI engine. Fuel
2007;86:448–54.
[21] Rakopoulos CD, Rakopoulos DC, Hountalas DT, Giakoumis EG, Andritsakis EC.
Performance and emissions of bus engine using blends of Diesel fuel with bio-
Diesel of sunflower or cottonseed oils derived from Greek feedstock. Fuel
2008;87:147–57.
[22] 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.
[23] Sanjid, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Ashrafur Rahman SM, Abedin MJ, Palash SM,
et al. Production of palm and jatropha based Biodiesel and investigation of
palm-jatropha combined blend properties, performance, exhaust emission and
noise in an unmodified Diesel engine. J Clean Prod 2014;65:295–303.
[24] Bora Dilip Kumar, Baruah DC. Assessment of tree seed oil Biodiesel: a
comparative review based on Biodiesel of a locally available tree seed. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:1616–29.
[25] Devan PK, Mahalakshmi NV. A study of the performance, emission and
combustion characteristics of a compression ignition engine using
methyl ester of paradise oil–eucalyptus oil blends. Appl Energy
2009;86:675–80.
[26] Atabani AE, Silitonga AS, Ong HC, Mahila TMI, Masjuki HH, Badruddin Irfan
Anjum, et al. Non-edible vegetable oils: a critical evaluation of oil extraction,
fatty acid compositions, biodiesel production, characteristics, engine
performance and emissions production.
[27] Al-Widyan Mohamad I, Tashtoush Ghassan, Abu-Qudais Moh’d. Utilization of
ethyl ester of waste vegetable oils as fuel in Diesel engines. Fuel Process
Technol 2002;76:91–103.
[28] Ramadhas AS, Jayaraj S, Muraleedharan C. Theoretical modeling and
experimental studies on Biodiesel-fueled engine. Renewable Energy
2006;31:1813–26.
[29] lua Can Has-imoğ, Cinivizb Murat, Özserta Ibrahim, _ Parlaka Yakup
_
Ic-ingüAdnan, Sahir Salman M. Performance characteristics of a low heat
rejection Diesel engine operating with Biodiesel. Renewable Energy
2008;33:1709–15.
[30] Saravanan S, Nagarajan G, Rao G Lakshmi Narayana. Feasibility analysis of
crude rice bran oil methyl ester blend as a stationary and automotive Diesel
engine fuel. Energy Sustain Devel 2009;13:52–5.
[31] Muthu H, SathyaSelvabala V, Varathachary TK, Kirupha Selvaraj D, Nandagopal
J, Subramanian S. ISSN 0104–6632, www.abeq.org.br/bjche, vol. 27, No. 04,
October–December; 2010. p. 601–8.
_
[32] Has-imoglua Can, Cinivizb Murat, Özserta Ibrahim, _
Ic-ingürc Yakup, Parlaka
Adnan, Sahir Salman M. Performance characteristics of a low heat
rejection Diesel engine operating with Biodiesel. Renewable Energy
2008;33:1709–15.
[33] Bunce Michael, Snyder David, Adi Gayatri, Hall Carrie, Koehler Jeremy, Kumar
Bernabe Davila Shankar, et al. Optimization of soy-Biodiesel combustion in a
modern Diesel engine. Fuel 2011;90:2560–70.
[34] Yilmaz Nadir, Sanchez Tomas M. Analysis of operating a diesel engine on
biodiesel–ethanol and biodiesel–methanol blends. Energy 2012;46:126–9.
[35] Roy Murari Mohon, Wang Wilson, Alawi Majed. Performance and emissions of
a diesel engine fueled by biodiesel–diesel, biodiesel–diesel–additive and
kerosene–biodiesel blends. Energy Convers Manage 2014;84:164–73.
[36] Zhang Zhi-Hui, Balasubramanian Rajasekhar. Influence of butanol addition to
diesel–biodiesel blend on engine performance and particulate emissions of a
stationary Diesel engine. Appl Energy 2014;119:530–6.
[37] Habibullah M, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Rizwanul Fattah IM, Ashraful AM,
Mobarak HM. Biodiesel production and performance evaluation of coconut,
palm and their combined blend with Diesel in a single-cylinder Diesel engine.
Energy Convers Manage 2014;87:250–7.
[38] EL_Kassaby Mohammed, Nemit_allah Medhat A. Studying the effect of
compression ratio on an engine fueled with waste oil produced Biodiesel/
Diesel fuel. Alexandria Eng J 2013;52:1–11.
[39] Howa HG, Masjukia HH, Kalama MA, Teoha YH. Engine performance, emission
and combustion characteristics of a common-rail Diesel engine fuelled with
bioethanol as a fuel additive in coconut oil Biodiesel blends. Energy Procedia
2014;61:1655–9.
169
[40] Mohsin R, Majid ZA, Shihnan AH, Nasri NS, Sharer Z. Effect of Biodiesel blends
on engine performance and exhaust emission for Diesel dual fuel engine.
Energy Convers Manage 2014;88:821–8.
[41] Labeckas Gvidonas, Slavinskas Stasys, Mazeika Marius. The effect of ethanol–
diesel–biodiesel blends on combustion, performance and emissions of a direct
injection Diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage 2014;79:698–720.
[42] Agarwal Avinash Kumar, Dhar Atul, Gupta Jai Gopal, Kim Woong Il, Choi
Kibong, Lee Chang Sik, et al. Effect of fuel injection pressure and injection
timing of Karanja Biodiesel blends on fuel spray, engine performance,
emissions and combustion characteristics. Energy Convers Manage
2015;91:302–14.
[43] Jaichandar S, Senthil Kumar P, Annamalai K. Combined effect of injection
timing and combustion chamber geometry on the performance of a Biodiesel
fueled Diesel engine. Energy 2012;47:388–94.
[44] Ashrafur Rahman SM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Abedin MJ, Sanjid A, Mofijur
Rahman Md. Assessing idling effects on a compression ignition engine fueled
with Jatropha and Palm Biodiesel blends. Renewable Energy 2014;68:644–50.
[45] Sanjid A, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Abedin MJ, Ashrafur Rahman SM.
Experimental investigation of mustard biodiesel blend properties,
performance, exhaust emission and noise in an unmodified diesel engine.
APCBEE Procedia 2014;10:149–53.
[46] Gulzar M, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Varman M, Rizwanul Fattah IM. Oil filter
modification for Biodiesel–fueled engine: a pathway to lubricant sustainability
and exhaust emissions reduction. Energy Convers Manage 2015;91:168–75.
[47] Imtenan S, Masjuki HH, Varman M, Kalam MA, Arbab MI, Sajjad H, et al. Impact
of oxygenated additives to palm and jatropha Biodiesel blends in the context
of performance and emissions characteristics of a light-duty Diesel engine.
Energy Convers Manage 2014;83:149–58.
[48] Sharon H, Jayaprakash R, Karthigai selvan M, Soban Kumar DR, Sundaresan A,
Karuppasamy K. Biodiesel production and prediction of engine performance
using SIMULINK model of trained neural network. Fuel 2012;99:197–203.
[49] Aydin Selman, Sayin Cenk, Aydin Hüseyin. Investigation of the usability of
Biodiesel obtained from residual frying oil in a Diesel engine with thermal
barrier coating. Appl Therm Eng 2015;80:212–9.
[50] Ozener Orkun, Yuksek Levent, Ergenc Alp Tekin, Ozkan Muammer. Effects of
soybean Biodiesel on a DI Diesel engine performance, emission and
combustion characteristics. Fuel 2014;115:875–83.
[51] Al_Dawodya F, Bhattib SK. Experimental and computational investigations for
combustion, performance and emission parameters of a diesel engine fueled
with soybean biodiesel–diesel blends. Energy Procedia 2014;52:421–30.
[52] Zhihao Ma, Xiaoyu Zhang, Junfa Duan, Xin Wang, Bin Xu, Jian Wu. Study on
emissions of a DI Diesel Engine fuelled with Pistacia Chinensis Bunge seed
biodiesel–diesel blends. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2011;11:1078–83.
[53] Roy Murari Mohon, Wang Wilson, Bujold Justin. Biodiesel production and
comparison of emissions of a DI Diesel engine fueled by Biodiesel–Diesel and
canola oil–Diesel blends at high idling operations. Appl Energy 2013;106:
198–208.
[54] Koc Bulent, Abdullah Mudhafar. Performance and NOx emissions of a Diesel
engine fueled with Biodiesel–Diesel–water nanoemulsions. Fuel Process
Technol 2013;109:70–7.
[55] Isaac JoshuaRamesh Lalvani J, Parthasarathy M, Arunkumar AV, Annamalai K.
Performance improvement on a single cylinder diesel engine powered with
Pongamia biodiesel by incorporating swirling grooves. Adv Mater Res
2013;768:199–205. ISSN: 1022–6680.
[56] Tuccar Gokhan, Aydın Kadir. Evaluation of methyl ester of microalgae oil as
fuel in a Diesel engine. Fuel 2013;112:203–7.
[57] Nayaka Swarup Kumar, Pattanaika Bhabani Prasanna. Experimental
investigation on performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine
fuelled with Mahua biodiesel using additive. Energy Procedia 2014;54:
569–79.
[58] Mirzajanzadeh Mehrdad, Tabatabaei Meisam, Ardjmand Mehdi, Ghobadian
Alimorad Rashidi Barat, Barkhi Mohammad, Pazouki Mohammad. A novel
soluble nano-catalysts in Diesel–Biodiesel fuel blends to improve Diesel
engines performance and reduce exhaust emissions. Fuel 2015;139:374–82.
[59] Aydın Selman, Sayın Cenk. Impact of thermal barrier coating application on the
combustion. Fuel 2014;136:334–40.
[60] Koc Bulent, Abdullah Mudhafar. Performance of a 4-cylinder diesel engine
running on tire oil–biodiesel–diesel blend. Fuel Process Technol 2014;118:
264–9.
[61] John B. Heywood Internal combustion engine fundamentals.
[62] Isaac JoshuaRamesh Lalvani J, Parthasarathy M, Dhinesh B, Annamalai K.
Experimental investigation of combustion, performance and emission
characteristics of a modified piston. J Mech Sci Technol 2015;29(10):1–6.
ISSN: 1976–3824.
[63] Isaac JoshuaRamesh Lalvani J, Parthasarathy M, Dhinesh B, Annamalai K.
Experimental Investigation on D.I Diesel engine with Renewable Biodiesel –
Adelfa. J Chem Pharmaceut Sci 2014(4):240–2. ISSN: 0974–211.
[64] Ramkumar S, Kirubakaran V. Feasibility study on thermal cracking of
Pongamia pinnata oil for I.C engine application. Int J Sci Eng Res 2014;5(2).
ISSN 2229–5518.