Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3959–3968

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Performance, emission and combustion characteristics of a variable

compression ratio engine using methyl esters of waste cooking oil and diesel blends
K. Muralidharan ⇑, D. Vasudevan
Department of Mechanical Engineering, PSNA College of Engineering & Technology, Dindigul 624 622, India

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

Article history: The performance, emission and combustion characteristics of a single cylinder four stroke variable com-
Received 13 October 2010 pression ratio multi fuel engine when fueled with waste cooking oil methyl ester and its 20%, 40%, 60%
Received in revised form 28 February 2011 and 80% blends with diesel (on a volume basis) are investigated and compared with standard diesel.
Accepted 2 April 2011
The suitability of waste cooking oil methyl ester as a biofuel has been established in this study. Bio diesel
Available online 22 April 2011
produced from waste sun flower oil by transesterification process has been used in this study. Experi-
ment has been conducted at a fixed engine speed of 1500 rpm, 50% load and at compression ratios of
Keywords:
18:1, 19:1, 20:1, 21:1 and 22:1. The impact of compression ratio on fuel consumption, combustion pres-
Bio diesel
Methyl esters of waste cooking oil
sures and exhaust gas emissions has been investigated and presented. Optimum compression ratio which
Compression ratio gives best performance has been identified. The results indicate longer ignition delay, maximum rate of
Variable compression ratio multi fuel pressure rise, lower heat release rate and higher mass fraction burnt at higher compression ratio for
engine waste cooking oil methyl ester when compared to that of diesel. The brake thermal efficiency at 50% load
for waste cooking oil methyl ester blends and diesel has been calculated and the blend B40 is found to
give maximum thermal efficiency. The blends when used as fuel results in reduction of carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbon and increase in nitrogen oxides emissions.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The progress of bio fuels can be traced back to early 19th cen-
tury. In fact, the development of diesel engines and bio fuels has
simultaneous history of technological advancements and economic
struggle. Bio fuels offer enhanced employment opportunities and
livelihood generation, leading to regional as well as national self
sufficiency [1]. Vegetable oils present a very hopeful alternative
fuel to diesel oil, since they are renewable, biodegradable and clean
burning, having properties analogous to that of diesel. They offer
similar power output with slightly lesser thermal efficiency due
to their lesser energy content compared to diesel [2]. Bio diesel,
produced from different vegetable oils (soybean, rapeseed and sun-
flower etc.), have been used in internal combustion engines with-
out major modifications, with only slightly decreased performance
[3].
Various researchers have conducted experiments to study the
performance and emission characteristics of diesel engine when
vegetable oils, blends of vegetable oil and its derivatives are used
as fuel and it has been found to be economical and competitive
compared to standard diesel [4–7].
Research works on such studies show that different kinds of
vegetable oils such as cottonseed oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil
⇑ Corresponding author. Mobile: +91 9443775518.
E-mail address: muralidha@gmail.com (K. Muralidharan).
and their corresponding methyl esters, rapeseed oil methyl ester,
palm oil methyl ester, corn oil, olive kernel oil, deccan hemp oil, jo-
joba oil, paradise oil, eucalyptus oil, poon oil, pongamia pinnata
methyl ester, coconut oil based hybrid fuels and pre heated waste
frying oil has been used as an alternative fuel for diesel engine. In
these entire cases, engine showed an improved performance with
reduction in smoke, hydrocarbon and CO emissions and increase
in NOx emission. In this way, a lucid image has been formed view-
ing the relative performance and emission characteristics of these
fuels [8–15].
In 2009, Arul Mozhi Selvan et al. [16] compared the combustion
characteristics of single-cylinder four stroke direct injection vari-
able compression ratio engine under compression ratios of 15:1,
l7:1, and 19:1 when using diesel and bio diesel–ethanol blends
as fuel. It has been observed that the cylinder gas pressure, maxi-
mum rate of pressure rise and heat release rate increase with high-
er ethanol concentration due to longer ignition delay. The exhaust
gas temperature was found to be less. The study also examined the
fuel burning characteristics of the diesel–bio diesel–ethanol blends
under various compression ratios and loading conditions. The per-
formance and emission tests have been carried out by using the
stable fuel blends on a computerized variable compression ratio
engine and compared with neat diesel [17].
In 2010, Panwar et al. [18] investigated the engine performance
of Castor Methyl Ester (CME) and Potassium Hydroxide (KOH) cat-
alyst used in four stroke, single cylinder variable compression ratio

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.04.014
3960 K. Muralidharan, D. Vasudevan / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3959–3968
Nomenclature
B20 20% bio diesel + 80% diesel
B40 40% bio diesel + 60% diesel
B60 60% bio diesel + 40% diesel
B80 80% bio diesel + 20% diesel
BP brake power
BTE brake thermal efficiency
CA crank angle
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
type diesel engine at different loads and concluded that the lower
blends of bio diesel increased the break thermal efficiency and
reduced the fuel consumption. The exhaust gas temperature
increased with increasing bio diesel concentration.
Gumus and Kasifoglu [19] studied the performance and
emissions of a compression ignition diesel engine without any
modification, using neat apricot seed kernel oil methyl ester and
its blends with diesel fuel and found that lower concentration of
apricot seed kernel oil methyl ester in blends give a better
improvement in the engine performance and exhaust emissions.
Prem Anand et al. [20] evaluated the combustion performance
and exhaust emission characteristics of turpentine oil fuel blended
with conventional diesel fuel in a diesel engine. Saravanan et al.
[21] analyzed the combustion characteristics of crude rice bran
oil methyl ester blend in a direct injection compression ignition
engine and found that the cylinder pressure was comparable
whereas the delay period and the maximum rate of pressure rise
were lower than that of diesel. Ismet Celikten et al. [22] compared
the performance and emissions of diesel fuel from rapeseed and
soybean oil methyl esters injected at different pressures (250,
300 and 350 bar). It has been found that the torque and power of
diesel fuel engine reduced with increasing injection pressure.
Smoke level (%) and CO emission also reduced while NOx emission
increased as the injection pressure is increased.
Jindal et al. [23] studied the effects of the engine design param-
eters such as compression ratio, fuel injection pressure and the
performance parameters such as fuel consumption, brake thermal
efficiency, emissions of CO, CO2, HC, NOx, smoke opacity with
Jatropha methyl ester as fuel. A comparison of performance and
emission for different compression ratios along with injection
pressure and the best possible combination for operating engine
with Jatropha methyl ester has been found. It is found that the
combined increase in compression ratio and injection pressure
increases the brake thermal efficiency and reduces the brake
specific fuel consumption while lowering the emissions.
Raheman and Ghadge [24] studied the performance of Ricardo
E6 engine using bio diesel obtained from mahua oil (B100) and
its blend with high speed diesel at varying compression ratio,
injection timing and engine loading. The brake specific fuel con-
sumption and exhaust gas temperature increased, whereas brake
thermal efficiency decreased with increase in the proportion of
bio diesel in the blends for all compression ratios (18:1–20:1)
and injection timings (35–45° before TDC). The authors concluded
that, bio diesel could be safely blended with HSD up to 20% at any
of the compression ratio and injection timing tested for getting
fairly accurate performance as that of diesel.
Most of the studies are conducted in different types of engines
with bio diesel prepared from different oils. The effect of
parameters on the performance of the engine with emission char-
acteristics and combustion characteristics of the bio diesel has
been emphasized in many studies [24–27]. However, it has to be
noted that the study on variable compression ratio engine using
CR compression ratio
HC hydro carbon
IMEP indicated mean effective pressure
NOx nitrogen oxides
O2 oxygen
SFC specific fuel consumption
VCR variable compression ratio
WCO waste cooking oil
bio diesel is limited [16,22,24]. The effect of compression ratio on
engine parameters, emission and combustion characteristics have
not been studied extensively. Hence this study has been devoted
to find suitable compression ratio which gives optimum
performance.
In this study, waste cooking oil (methyl esters of waste cooking
oil) and its blends with diesel is chosen as a fuel for variable
compression ratio multi fuel engine. The various blends of waste
cooking oil (WCO) and standard diesel fuel are prepared and the
following investigations are carried out.
 The performance and emission characteristics of variable com-
pression ratio engine using various blends at compression ratios
18:1, 19:1, 20:1, 21:1 and 22:1 for 50% load and its comparison
with the results of standard diesel fuel.
 The combustion parameters such as variation of cylinder pres-
sure, maximum rate of pressure rise, heat release rate and mass
fraction burnt are discussed with reference to the crank angle
for different compression ratios.
2. Experimental set up
Fig. 1 shows the schematic diagram of the experimental set up.
The test engine used is a variable compression ratio multi fuel en-
gine coupled with eddy current dynamometer. The specification of
the engine is shown in Table 1. Engine performance analysis soft-
ware package ‘‘Engine Test Express V5.76’’ have been employed
for online performance analysis. The Kistler piezoelectric pressure
transducer and a crank angle encoder which measures the combus-
tion pressure and the corresponding crank angle respectively are
mounted into the engine head. The pressure transmitter Type
6613CA contains a piezoelectric sensor and an integrated charge
amplifier. The output shaft of the eddy current dynamometer is
fixed to a strain gauge type load cell for measuring applied load
to the engine.
Type K–Chromel (Nickel–Chromium Alloy)/ Alumel (Nickel–
Aluminum Alloy) thermocouples are used to measure gas
temperature at the engine exhaust, calorimeter exhaust, water
inlet of calorimeter and water outlet of calorimeter, engine cooling
water outlet and ambient temperature. Mass air flow sensor is
used to measure the airflow rate. A shell and tube gas to liquid heat
exchanger is used as a calorimeter for conducting the heat balance.
The fuel flow is measured by the use of 20 cc burette and
stopwatch with level sensors.
A computerized data acquisition system is used to collect, store
and analyze the data during the experiment by using various
sensors.
2.1. Experimental methodology
The variable compression ratio engine is started by using
standard diesel and when the engine reaches the operating
 K. Muralidharan, D. Vasudevan / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3959–3968 3961

Bio diesel Petrol

Multi fuel VCR Engine

Exhaust gas
Analyzer Computer
Data
Air plenum Acquisition
System

Coupling

VCR Engine Eddy current

Dynamometer

Measuring
Encoder Burette

BED BED

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental set up.

Table 1 Table 2
Specification of the variable compression ratio engine. The accuracies of the measurements and the uncertainty of the
calculated results.
General details 4-Stroke, water cooled, variable compression
ratio engine, compression ignition Measurements Accuracy
Rated power 3 .7 kW
Engine speed ±2 rpm
Speed 1500 rpm (constant)
Temperatures ±1 °C
Number of cylinder Single cylinder
Carbon monoxide ±0.02 %
Compression ratio 5:1–22:1 (variable)
Hydrocarbon ±10 ppm
Bore 80 mm
Carbon dioxide ±0.5%
Stroke 110 mm
Nitrogen oxides ±15 ppm
Ignition Compression ignition
Time ±0.5%
Loading Eddy current dynamometer
Calculated results Uncertainty
Load sensor Strain gauge load cell
Power ±1%
Starting Manual crank start
Specific fuel consumption ±2%
Cooling Water
Crank angle encoder ±0.5° CA

temperature, 50% load is applied. The warm up period ends when
cooling water temperature is stabilized at 60 °C. The tests are con-
ducted at the rated speed of 1500 rpm. In every test, volumetric
fuel consumption and exhaust gas emissions such as carbon mon-
oxide (CO), hydrocarbon (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon diox-
ide (CO2) and oxygen (O2) are measured. From the initial
measurement, brake thermal efficiency (BTE), specific fuel con-
sumption (SFC), brake power (BP), indicated mean effective pres-
sure (IMEP) mechanical efficiency and exhaust gas temperature
with respect to compression ratios 18:1, 19:1, 20:1, 21:1 and
22:1 for different blends are calculated and recorded. At each oper-
ating conditions, the combustion characteristics and exhaust emis-
sion levels are also processed and stored in personal computer (PC)
for further processing of results. The same procedure is repeated
for different blends of waste cooking oil methyl esters. Table 2
shows the accuracy of the measurements and the uncertainty of
the calculated results of the various parameters. The properties
of the diesel fuel and the bio diesel blends are summarized in Table
3. The typical values taken from the different references men-
tioned. The actual density, viscosity, fire point, flash point and
gross calorific value were measured in the laboratory. The values
are provided to comprehend the relative performance and emis-
sion activities of the different fuel blends.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Brake thermal efficiency and Specific fuel consumption
The variation of brake thermal efficiency (BTE) for different
compression ratios and for different blends is given in Fig. 2. It
has been observed that the brake thermal efficiency of the blend
B40 is slightly higher than that of the standard diesel at higher
compression ratios. It appears that the brake thermal efficiency
of the blend B40 is higher for the compression ratio 21. The brake
thermal efficiency of the standard diesel and blend B40 for com-
pression ratio 21 is 26.08% and 31.48% respectively. By increasing
the compression ratio of the engine, the brake thermal efficiency
3962 K. Muralidharan, D. Vasudevan / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3959–3968

Table 3
Fuel properties of diesel and bio diesel blends.

Properties Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80 B100 Bio diesel standardsb,c
ASTM D 6751–02 DIN EN 14214
Density (kg/m3) 0.835 0.84 0.845 0.85 0.87 0.89 – 0.86–0.90
Viscosity at 40 °C(mm2/s) 1.382 1.407 1.44 1.464 1.556 2.72 1.9–6.0 3.5–5.0
Flash point 42 °C 43 °C 53 °C 82 °C 84 °C 186 °C >130 >120
Fire point 68 °C 65 °C 76 °C 104 °C 124 °C 208 °C – –
Calculated cetane index 45–50a 52 48 46 44 41 41 min 51 min
Gross calorific value (kJ/kg) 45240a 40606 38895 37267 36246 35401 – –
a
Ref. [26].
b
Ref. [33].
c
Ref. [24].

40
3.2. Brake power and indicated mean effective pressure
Brake thermal efficiency (%)

The brake power values for different blends of different com-

36
pression ratios are shown in Fig. 4. The figure shows that the
blends B20, B40, B60 and B80 with standard diesel have a reduc-
32
tion in brake power. Thermal efficiency is defined as the ratio of
the power output to the energy introduced through fuel injection;
28
the later is the product of the injected mass flow rate and the lower
heating value [31]. Brake power decreases at higher compression
24 ratio due to the conversion from the chemical energy to mechani-
Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80
cal energy. Due to the lower heating value of the blends and unsta-
20 ble combustion the brake power decreases. The maximum brake
18 19 20 21 22
Compression ratio power obtained for B40 and diesel at a compression ratio 21 is
2.07 KW and 2.12 KW respectively. The other blends are also
Fig. 2. Variation of brake thermal efficiency with compression ratio for different indicated at a reduction in brake power, with higher compression
blends. ratios due to lower heating value of fuel. The indicated mean effec-
tive pressure for blend B40 is higher at lower compression ratios
also gets increased for all the fuel types tested. Brake thermal effi-
ciency is directly proportionate to the compression ratio [28]. The 2.2
result indicates a significant improvement in brake thermal effi-
ciency for blend B40 at compression ratio 21. The specific fuel con-
sumption of B40 blend is lower than that of all other blends at 2.1
Brake power (KW)

compression ratio 20 and 21 and is shown in Fig 3. This may be

due to fuel density, viscosity and heating value of the fuels. B40
has higher energy content than B60 and B80, but lower than B20 2
and diesel. It appears that the specific fuel consumption (SFC) for
blend B40 is lower at compression ratio 21. The specific energy
consumption decreases with the increase in compression ratio 1.9
[16]. The specific fuel consumption of the blend B40 at the com-
Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80
pression ratio of 21 is 0.259 kg/kwh whereas for diesel it is
0.314 kg/Kwh. At higher percentage of blends, the specific fuel con- 1.8
sumption increases. This is due to the decrease in calorific value for 18 19 20 21 22
the higher blends. Low values of specific fuel consumption are Compression ratio
obviously desirable [29].
Fig. 4. Variation of brake power with compression ratios for different blends.

0.4

6.5
0.36
SFC (kg/KWh)

6
0.32
IMEP (bar)

0.28 5.5

0.24
5
Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80
Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80
0.2
18 19 20 21 22
4.5
Compression ratio 18 19 20 21 22
Compression ratio
Fig. 3. Variation of specific fuel consumption with compression ratio for different
blends. Fig. 5. Variation of IMEP with compression ratio for different blends.
 K. Muralidharan, D. Vasudevan / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3959–3968 3963

and lower at higher compression ratio than standard diesel. The due to the lower calorific value of blended fuel as compared to
variation of indicated mean effective pressure with compression the standard diesel and lower temperature, at the end of compres-
ratio for different blends is shown in Fig. 5. The blend B40 closely sion [16]. Lower exhaust loss may be the possible reason for higher
follows the diesel at higher compression ratios. The indicated mean performance [11].
effective pressure for blend B40 and diesel at compression ratio 21
is 5.583 bar and 5.774 bar.
4. Emission analysis
3.3. Mechanical efficiency
4.1. Procedure
The variations of mechanical efficiency with compression ratio
for various blends are shown in Fig. 6. It has been observed that A MN–05 model, MARS portable gas analyzer was used for mea-
the mechanical efficiency of the blends is lesser in lower compres- suring the exhaust gas emissions. The probe of the analyzer is in-
sion ratio and higher in higher compression ratio. The mechanical serted into the exhaust pipe of the engine before taking the
efficiency of the blend B40 increases with the increase in compres- measurements. After the engine has stabilized in working condi-
sion ratio, when compared to that of standard diesel. The tion, the exhaust emissions were measured. By using this analyzer
maximum mechanical efficiency obtained from blend B40 for Carbon monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbon (HC), Nitrogen oxides (NOx),
compression ratio 21 is 52.53%. Mechanical efficiency increases Carbon dioxide (CO2) and Oxygen (O2) were measured for different
with increasing compression ratio for all the blends. blends of methyl ester of waste cooking oil with standard diesel
and analyzed for different compression ratios. The various Indian
3.4. Exhaust gas temperature standards used for emission analysis are given in Table 4 [32].
The results of waste cooking oil methyl ester and blends of bio
The variations of exhaust gas temperature for different com- diesel are within the acceptable limits.
pression ratio and for different blends are shown in Fig. 7. The
result indicates that exhaust gas temperature decreases for differ-
ent blends when compared to that of diesel. At lower compression
Table 4
ratio 18 the exhaust gas temperature of the blends are higher com- Indian standards used for emission analysis [34].
pared to that of standard diesel. As the compression ratio increases,
Elements Standard
the exhaust gas temperature of the various blends is lesser than
that of diesel. The highest temperature obtained is 233.48 C for Carbon dioxide IS 13270:1992 (reaffirmed 1999)
Carbon monoxide IS 11293:1992
standard diesel for a compression ratio of 21, whereas the temper-
Nitrogen oxides IS 11255 – (PART 7) – 2005
ature is only 200.61 °C for the blend B40. The reason for the reduc- Hydrocarbon –
tion in exhaust gas temperature at increased compression ratio is

60 80
Mechanical efficiency (%)

70
56
60
HC (g/kWhr)

52 50

40
48
30
44 20
Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80
10
40 Diesel B20% B40% B60% B80%
18 19 20 21 22
0
Compression ratio 18 19 20 21 22
Compression ratio
Fig. 6. Variation of mechanical efficiency with compression ratio for different
blends. Fig. 8. Variation of hydro carbon with compression ratio for different blends.

260 1200
Exhaust gas temperature ( C)

1100
ο

240
1000
NOx (PPM)

220 900

800
200
700

180 600
Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80
500
160 Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80
18 19 20 21 22 400
Compression ratio 18 19 20 21 22
Compression ratio
Fig. 7. Variation of exhaust gas temperature with compression ratio for different
blends. Fig. 9. Variation of NOx with compression ratio for different blends.
3964 K. Muralidharan, D. Vasudevan / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3959–3968

0.5 fuels [13]. In this research, it shows that the increase in compres-
sion ratio increases the HC emission for Blend B40. The other
0.4 blends B20, B60 and B80 produce lesser hydrocarbon emissions
at higher compression ratio than the standard diesel. Due to the
longer ignition delay, the accumulation of fuel in the combustion
0.3
CO (%)

chamber may cause the higher hydro carbon emission.

0.2
4.2.2. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission
The variations of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission with respect to
0.1
different compression ratio for different blends are shown in Fig. 9.
Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80
As observed from the figure, the NOx emission for diesel and other
0 blends increase with the increase of compression ratio. From the
18 19 20 21 22
Compression ratio figure, it is obvious that for compression ratio 21, NOx emission
from the waste cooking oil blend B40 is higher than that of diesel.
Fig. 10. Variation of carbon monoxide with compression ratio for different blends. The other blend closely follows the standard diesel. The reason for
higher NOx emission for blends is due to higher peak temperature.
The reduction of NOx is the prime aim of the engine researchers.
5
The NOx emission for diesel and blend B40 for compression ratio
21 is 621 ppm and 640 ppm respectively.

4.5
4.2.3. Carbon monoxide emission
Fig. 10 shows the variation of carbon monoxide emission of the
4
CO2 (%)

blends and diesel with various compression ratios. The CO emis-

sion of the blend B40 is close to the standard diesel and it is found
3.5
to be higher for compression ratio 21. The other blends B20, B60
and B80 have slightly lesser CO emission for compression ratio
3 21. The percentage of CO increases due to rising temperature in
Diesel B20% B40% B60% B80%
the combustion chamber, physical and chemical properties of the
2.5 fuel, air–fuel ratio, shortage of oxygen at high speed, and lesser
18 19 20 21 22
amount of time available for complete combustion [32]. The effects
Compression ratio of fuel viscosity on fuel spray quality would be expected to make
Fig. 11. Variation of CO2 with compression ratio for different blends. some CO increase with vegetable oil fuels. [30].

4.2.4. Carbon dioxide emission

4.2. Result and discussions The variation of carbon dioxide emission with different com-
pression ratios are shown in Fig 11. The blend emits higher per-
4.2.1. Hydro carbon emission centage of CO2 than diesel at lower compression ratios and vice
The variation of hydrocarbon emission with different compres- versa. More amount of CO2 is an indication of complete combus-
sion ratios for different blends is given in Fig. 8. It shows that the tion of fuel in the combustion chamber. It also relates to the ex-
hydrocarbon emission of various blends is higher at higher com- haust gas temperature. CO2 emission of the blend B40 for
pression ratios. The effects of fuel viscosity, on the fuel spray qual- compression ratio 21 is lesser due to incomplete combustion and
ity, are expected to produce some HC increase with vegetable oil inadequate supply of oxygen. The accumulation of CO2 in the

100

80
Combustion pressure (bar)

60

40

20

Diesel B20% B40% B60% B80%

0
325 335 345 355 365 375 385 395 405 415 425
Crank angle (deg)

Fig. 12. Variation of combustion pressure with crank angle for compression ratio 18.
 K. Muralidharan, D. Vasudevan / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3959–3968 3965

atmosphere leads to many environmental problems like ozone
depletion and global warming. The CO2 emission from the combus-
tion of bio fuels can be absorbed by the plants and the carbon diox-
ide level and is kept constant in the atmosphere.
5. Combustion analysis
5.1. Result and analysis
5.1.1. Combustion pressure
The variation of combustion pressure with respect to crank an-
gle for different compression ratios and for different blends are
shown in Figs. 12–16. It has been observed from the variation of
cylinder pressure for various compression ratios 18:1, 19:1, 20:1,
21:1 and 22:1 that the waste cooking oil blends give high combus-
tion pressure compared to that of standard diesel due to longer
ignition delay of WCO and may be due to the lower cetane number
of the blend. The fuel absorbs more amount of heat from the
cylinder immediately after injection and resulting in longer igni-
tion delay [30]. It is observed that 63.53 bar, 62.35 bar, 64.06 bar,
64.61 bar and 64.71 bar for standard diesel and waste cooking oil
blends B20, B40, B60 and B80. The combustion pressure for diesel
is higher for lower compression ratios and the combustion
pressure for blends are higher for higher compression ratios. The
maximum rate of increase in pressure is increasing with increase
in the compression ratio. The oxygen fortification in the blend
due to the addition of bio diesel is the reason for the increased
pressure rise [16]. At a compression ratio 19:1, maximum pressure
rise of the blend B80 is very different from B20. This is due to the
faster and complete combustion of fuel inside the combustion
chamber. At lower compression ratios, the maximum combustion
pressure for diesel is higher than that of diesel–bio diesel blends.
The maximum rate of increase in pressure is increasing with in-
crease in compression ratio for different blends.

100

80
Combustion pressure (bar)

60

40

20

Diesel B20% B40% B60% B80%

0
325 335 345 355 365 375 385 395 405 415 425
Crank angle (deg)

Fig. 13. Variation of combustion pressure with crank angle for compression ratio 19.

100

80
Combustion pressure (bar)

60

40

20

Diesel B20% B40% B60% B80%

0
325 335 345 355 365 375 385 395 405 415 425
Crank angle (deg)

Fig. 14. Variation of combustion pressure with crank angle for compression ratio 20.
3966 K. Muralidharan, D. Vasudevan / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3959–3968

100

80

Comustion pressure (bar)

60

40

20

Diesel B20% B40% B60% B80%

0
325 335 345 355 365 375 385 395 405 415 425
Crank angle (deg)

Fig. 15. Variation of combustion pressure with crank angle for compression ratio 21.

100

80
Combustion pressure (bar)

60

40

20

Diesel B20% B40% B60% B80%

0
325 335 345 355 365 375 385 395 405 415 425
Crank angle (deg)

Fig. 16. Variation of combustion pressure with crank angle for compression ratio 22.

20
25

20 15
Heat release rate (J/CA)
Heat release rate(J/CA)

15 10

10
5
5
0
0 325 345 365 385 405 425
325 345 365 385 405 425 Crank angle (deg)
Crank angle (deg) -5
-5
Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80 Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80
-10 -10

Fig. 17. Variation of heat release rate with crank angle for different blends at Fig. 18. Variation of heat release rate with crank angle for different blends at
compression ratio 18. compression ratio 19.
 K. Muralidharan, D. Vasudevan / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3959–3968 3967

5.1.2. Heat release rate
The variation of heat release rate with respect to crank angle for
different waste cooking oil blends and different compression ratios
18:1, 19:1, 20:1, 21:1 and 22:1 is given in Fig. 17–21 respectively.
The heat release is analyzed based on the changes in crank angle
variation of the cylinder. It has been observed that the heat release
rate increases with the lower compression ratios and slightly de-
creases at higher compression ratios. This may be due to the air
entrainment and lower air/fuel mixing rate and effect of viscosity
of the blends. The heat release rate of standard diesel is higher than
oil blend due to its reduced viscosity and better spray formation
20
[13]. The heat release rate of waste cooking oil blends decreases
compared to diesel for increase in compression ratios. This may
be due to the reduction in viscosity and good spray formation with
increase in compression ratio in the engine cylinder. The mass frac-
tion burnt of blends is slightly higher at lower compression ratio
and closely follows the standard diesel at higher compression ratio.
Due to the oxygen content of the blend, combustion is sustained in
the diffusive combustion phase. The engine operates in rich mix-
ture and it reaches stoichiometric region at higher compression ra-
tio. More fuel is accumulated in the combustion phase and it
causes rapid heat release [16]. The waste cooking oil blends causes
longer duration for combustion at lower compression ratio and les-
ser duration for combustion at higher compression ratio.

15 6. Conclusion
Heat release rate (J/CA)

10 The performance, emission and combustion characteristics of a

multi fuel variable compression ratio engine fueled with waste
5 cooking oil bio diesel and diesel blends have been investigated
and compared with that of standard diesel. The experimental re-
0 sults confirm that the BTE, SFC, BP, exhaust gas temperature and
325 345 365 385 405 425 mechanical efficiency of variable compression ratio engine, are a
-5
Crank angle (deg) function of bio diesel blend, load and compression ratio. For the
Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80
similar operating conditions, engine performance reduced with in-
crease in bio diesel percentage in the blend. However by increasing
-10
the compression ratio the engine performance varied and it be-
Fig. 19. Variation of heat release rate with crank angle for different blends at comes comparable with that of standard diesel. The following con-
compression ratio 20. clusions are drawn from this investigation:

 The brake thermal efficiency of the blend B40 is slightly higher

20 than that of standard diesel at higher compression ratios. The
specific fuel consumption of blend B40 is lower than that of
15 all other blends and diesel. This may be due to better combus-
tion, and increase in the energy content of the blend. The max-
Heat release rate (J/CA)

imum brake power obtained for B40 and diesel at the

10
compression ratio 21 is 2.07 kW and 2.12 kW respectively.
The indicates that mean effective pressure for the blend B40
5 is higher at lower compression ratios and lower at higher com-
pression ratios than for standard diesel.
0  The exhaust gas temperature decreases at higher compression
325 345 365 385 405 425 ratio. The reason is the lower calorific value of blended fuel as
Crank angle (deg) compared to that of standard diesel and lower temperature at
-5
the end of compression. The exhaust gas temperature for the
Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80 blends is higher compared to that of standard diesel at lower
-10 compression ratios. At higher compression ratios the exhaust
Fig. 20. Variation of heat release rate with crank angle for different blends at gas temperature for the blends are lower compared to that of
compression ratio 21. standard diesel. These variations can be attributed to the
increase in thermal efficiency.
 The hydrocarbon emission of various blends is higher at higher
20 compression ratios. The increase in compression ratio increases
the HC emission for blend B40. The emission of oxides of nitro-
15 gen (NOx) from the waste cooking oil blend B40 is higher than
that of diesel. The CO emission of the blend B40 is closer to
Heat release rate (J/CA)

10 the standard diesel and it is very higher at compression ratio

21. The CO2 emission is also lesser at the same conditions.
5  Waste cooking oil blends give higher combustion pressure at
high compression ratio due to longer ignition delay, maximum
rate of pressure rise and lower heat release rate when compared
0
325 345 365 385 405 425 to diesel.
-5 Crank angle (deg)
From the above observations, it has been found that the perfor-
Diesel B20 B40 B60 B80 mance of the B40 blend is superior when compared with the
-10
conventional standard diesel at compression ratio 21. There is
Fig. 21. Variation of heat release rate with crank angle for different blends at slight increase in NOx emission, but it is still comparable with that
compression ratio 22. of standard diesel fuel and is also in the acceptable range. The
3968 K. Muralidharan, D. Vasudevan / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3959–3968
experimental result also proves that lower and medium percent-
ages of waste cooking oil methyl ester can be substituted for diesel
fuel.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to the All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE), Government of India for providing Grant (No.
8024 / RID / BOR / MOD / 70 / 08 / 09) under Modernization and
Removal of Obsolescence (MODROB) Scheme and the Management
of PSNA college of Engineering and Technology for providing
matching grant for the purchase of variable compression ratio mul-
ti fuel engine test rig. The research work has been carried out in
this test rig.
References
[1] Kishore VVN. Renewable energy engineering and technology principles and
practice. TERI 2008.
[2] Banapurmath NR, Tewari PG, Yaliwal VS, Kambalimath Satish, Basavarajappa
YH. Combustion characteristics of a 4-stroke CI engine operated on Honge oil,
Neem and Rice bran oils when directly injected and dual fuelled with producer
gas induction. Renew Energy 2009;34:1884–7.
[3] Carraretto C, Macor A, Mirandola A, Stoppato A, Tonon S. Biodiesel as
alternative fuel: Experimental analysis and energetic evaluations. Energy
2004;29:2195–211.
[4] Pramanik K. Properties and use of jatropha curcas oil and diesel fuel blends in
compression ignition engine. Renew Energy 2003;28:239–48.
[5] Senthil Kumar M, Ramesh A, Nagalingam B. An experimental comparison of
methods to use methanol and Jatropha oil in compression ignition engine.
Biomass Bio Energy 2003;25:309–18.
[6] Forson FK, Oduro EK, Hammond-Donkoh E. Performance of jatropha oil blends
in a diesel engine. Renew Energy 2004;29:1135–45.
[7] Ramdhas AS, Jeyaraj S, Muraleedharan C. Use of vegetable oils as IC engines
fuels – a review. Renew Energy 2004;29:727–42.
[8] Huzayyin AS, Bawady AH, Rady MA, Dawood A. Experimental evaluation of
diesel engine performance and emission using blends of jojoba oil and diesel
fuel. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:2093–112.
[9] Pugazhvadivu M, Jeyachandran K. Investigations on the performance and
exhaust emissions of a diesel engine using preheated waste frying oil as fuel.
Renew Energy 2005;30:2189–202.
[10] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulos KA, Rakopoulos DC, Hountalas DT, Giakoumis
EG. Comparative performance and emissions study of a direct injection diesel
engine using blends of diesel fuel with vegetable oils or bio – diesels of various
origins. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47:3272–87.
[11] Hebbal OD, Vijayakumar Reddy K, Rajagopal K. Performance characteristics of
a diesel engine with deccan hemp oil. Fuel 2006;85:2187–94.
[12] Sureshkumar K, Velraj R, Ganesan R. Performance and exhaust emission
characteristics of a CI engine fueled with Pongamia pinnata methyl ester
(PPME) and its blends with diesel. Renew Energy 2008;33:2294–302.
[13] Devan PK, Mahalakshmi NV. A study of 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.
[14] Pranil J, Singh, Jagjit Khurma, Anirudh Singh. Preparation, characterization,
engine performance and emission characteristics of coconut oil based hybrid
fuels. Renew Energy 2010;35:2065–70.
[15] Huseyin Aydin, Hasan Bayindir. Performance and emission analysis of
cottonseed oil methyl ester in a diesel engine. Renew Energy
2010;35:588–92.
[16] Arul Mozhi Selvan V, Anand RB, Udayakumar M. Combustion characteristics of
diesohol using bio diesel as an additive in a direct injection ignition engine
under various compression ratios. Energy & Fuels 2009;23:5413–22.
[17] Arul Mozhi Selvan V, Anand RB, Udayakumar M. Stability, performance and
emission characteristics of diesel – ethanol blend with castor oil as additive in
variable compression ratio engine. Proceedings of the international conference
of Fascinating Advances in Mechanical Engineering – FAME’08. India. 2008.
[18] Panwar NL, Hemant Y, Shrirame Rathore NS, Sudhakar Jindal, Kurchania AK.
Performance evaluation of a diesel engine fueled with methyl ester of castor
seed oil. Appl Therm Eng 2010;30:245–9.
[19] Gumus M, Kasifoglu S. Performance and emission evaluation of a compression
ignition engine using a biodiesel (apricot seed kernel oil methyl ester) and its
blends with diesel fuel. Biomass Bioenergy 2010;34:134–9.
[20] Prem Anand B, Saravanan CG, Ananda Srinivasan C. Performance and exhaust
emission of turpentine oil powered direct injection diesel engine. Renew
Energy 2010;35:1179–84.
[21] Saravanan S, Nagarajan G, Lakshmi Narayana Rao G, Sampath S. Combustion
Characteristics of a stationary diesel engine fuelled with a blend of crude rice
bran oil methyl ester and diesel. Energy 2010;35:94–100.
[22] Ismet Celikten, Atilla Koca, Mehmet Ali Arslan. Comparison of performance
and emissions of diesel fuel, rapeseed and soybean oil methyl esters injected at
different pressures. Renew Energy 2010;35:814–20.
[23] Jindal S, Nandwana BP, Rathore NS, Vashistha V. Experimental investigation of
the effect of compression ratio and injection pressure in a direct injection
diesel engine running on Jatropha methyl ester. Appl Therm Eng
2010;30:442–8.
[24] Raheman H, Ghadge SV. Performance of diesel engine with biodiesel at varying
compression ratio and ignition timing. Fuel 2008;87:2659–66.
[25] Xue Jinlin, Grift Tony E, Hansen Alan C. Effect of biodiesel on engine
performances and emissions. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2011;15:1098–116.
[26] Murugesan A, Umarani C, Subramanian R, Nedunchezhian N. Bio-diesel as an
alternative fuel for diesel engines-a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev
2009;13:653–62.
[27] Enweremadu CC, Rutto HL. Combustion, emission and engine performance
characteristics of used cooking oil biodiesel-a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev
2010;14:2863–73.
[28] Ramadhas AS, Jayaraj S, Muraleedharan C. Theoretical modeling and
experimental studies on biodiesel–fueled engine. Renew Energy
2006;31:1813–26.
[29] Heywood JB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. McGraw Hill Book Co;
1988.
[30] Devan PK, Mahalakshmi NV. Performance, emission and combustion
characteristics of poon oil and its diesel blends in a DI diesel engine. Fuel
2009;88:861–7.
[31] Devan PK, Mahalakshmi NV. Study of the performance, emission and
combustion characteristics of a diesel engine using poon oil – based fuels.
Fuel Process Technol 2009;90:513–9.
[32] Arpa Orhan, Yumrutas Recep, Argunhan Zeki. Experimental investigation
of the effects of diesel – like fuel obtained from waste lubrication oil on
engine performance and exhaust emission. Fuel Process Technol
2010;91:1241–9.
[33] Gumus M. A comprehensive experimental investigation of combustion and
heat release characteristics of a biodiesel (hazelnut kernel oil methyl
ester) fuelled direct injection compression ignition engine. Fuel
2010;89:2802–14.
[34] Hirkude Jagannath Balasaheb, Padalkar Atul S. Performance and emission
analysis of a compression ignition engine operated on waste frie oil methyl
esters. Appl Energy 2010. doi:10.1016/ j.apenergy.2010.11.02.