Fuel xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Full Length Article

Studies on performance, combustion and emission of a single cylinder diesel

engine fuelled with rubber seed oil and its biodiesel along with ethanol as
injected fuel
⁎
V. Edwin Geoa, , Ankit Sonthaliab, G. Nagarajanc, B. Nagalingama
a
Department of Automobile Engineering, SRM University, Kattankulathur 603203, Tamil Nadu, India
b
Department of Mechanical and Automobile Engineering, SRM University, NCR Campus, Modi Nagar 201204, India
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Anna University, Chennai 600025, Tamil Nadu, India

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

Keywords: Alcohols are gaining interest as an alternate biofuel for compression ignition engines because they contain
Rubber seed oil oxygen and are produced using biomass. Since they have lower cetane number, they are suitable for premixed
Ethanol combustion applications. In this investigation, the authors have tried to improve a single cylinder diesel engine’s
Diesel engine performance by injecting ethanol into the intake port during the suction stroke. Rubber seed oil (RSO), rubber
Liquid injection
seed oil methyl ester (RSOME) and diesel are the primary fuels injected directly into the combustion chamber.
Performance
The injection timing and duration of ethanol injection were optimized for dual fuel operation. The results in-
Emission and combustion
dicate that increasing ethanol quantity with RSO and RSOME lead to an increase in brake thermal efficiency and
reduction in smoke emissions. The maximum brake thermal efficiency achieved at full load is 31%, 29.9% and
29.3% with diesel, RSOME and RSO at ethanol energy shares of 35.2%, 33.5% and 31.6%, respectively. Smoke
reduces by 44.26% with RSO, 43.63% with RSOME and 26.47% with diesel at maximum thermal efficiency
point. However, HC, CO, and NOx emissions increases with increase in ethanol energy share at all loads. Peak
pressure and maximum rate of pressure rise increases with increase in ethanol injection. Combustion duration
reduces with ethanol injection, which in turn contributes to a higher heat release rate.

1. Introduction
Diesel engines form the backbone of the transportation and agri-
cultural sector because of higher thermal efficiency and lower fuel
consumption as compared to gasoline engines, which is due to its higher
compression ratios, leaner air-fuel mixtures, and lower pumping losses.
Developing countries like India, rely heavily on diesel engines to
transport people as well as goods, the rate of which is increasing day-
by-day. This leads to increased diesel consumption, a massive outflow
of foreign exchange and concern for the environment. Fuels of bio-
origin (straight vegetable oils), which are renewable and have proper-
ties close to diesel [1–3] can be the solution to these problems. How-
ever, straight vegetable oils have high viscosity and low volatility,
boiling point and cetane number. This causes incomplete combustion,
engine deposits, engine oil contamination and high smoke emissions
[4,5], making them unfit for direct use in diesel engines. Trans-ester-
ification can reduce the viscosity of the straight vegetable oil so that
problems associated with higher viscosity can be reduced [6].
Biofuels can be obtained from both edible oil as well as inedible oils.
The price of edible oil such as sunflower, soybean and palm oil are high
as compared to diesel. Converting these oils into biodiesel further in-
creases the price, making it an unviable fuel for developing countries
like India. Inedible oil such as linseed, castor, karanji, neem, rubber and
jatropha are available in large quantities in India, and they can be easily
converted to biodiesel at low cost. In this experimental setup, rubber
seed oil is taken as the pilot fuel and ethanol as the ignition improver in
a diesel engine. Rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis) belongs to
Euphorbiaceae family. It originated from South America and has been
cultivated in South East Asia since 1876. The tree grows rapidly at al-
titudes below 200 m at temperatures of about 27–30 °C [7]. It is a
prominent plantation crop which holds vital economic importance for
India. The tree not only provides rubber latex but also a variety of
ancillary products, rubber seed being one of them. The production of
rubber seed is 150 kg/ha in India. The average oil yield from the seed is
40% to 60% of the kernel by weight. The oil extracted has application
limited to soap and lubricating industries. Rubber seed oil has 17–20%
saturated fatty acids, 17–22% unsaturated fatty acids and viscosity of
more than 30 cSt. As a result, the rubber seed oil as a fuel has less

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vedwingeo@gmail.com (V.E. Geo).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.036
Received 28 February 2017; Received in revised form 11 July 2017; Accepted 8 August 2017
0016-2361/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Edwin Geo, V., Fuel (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.036
V.E. Geo et al. Fuel xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Nomenclature RSO 100% RSO at full load

RSO 75% RSO at 75% load
ATDC After Top Dead Center RSO 50% RSO at 50% load
ECU Electronic Control Unit RSO 25% RSO at 25% load
RPM Revolution Per Minute RSOME 100% RSOME at full load
BSEC Brake Specific Energy Consumption RSOME 75% RSOME at 75% load
CA Crank Angle RSOME 50% RSOME at 50% load
RSOME Rubber Seed Oil Methyl ester RSOME 25% RSOME at 25% load
RSO Rubber Seed Oil NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
Diesel 100% Diesel fuel at full load HC Hydrocarbon
Diesel 75% Diesel fuel at 75% load CO Carbon Monoxide
Diesel 50% Diesel fuel at 50% load CO2 Carbon Dioxide
Diesel 25% Diesel fuel at 25% load

thermal efficiency and increased smoke emission as compared to diesel the performance, emission and combustion characteristics of a rubber
[8]. The important properties of rubber seed oil and ethanol compared seed oil-fuelled diesel engine with ethanol injection in the intake air
with diesel is given in Table 1. manifold. The optimum injection timing, duration, and quantity of
Biomass produced ethanol has a promising future as a spark ignition ethanol injected was found based on brake thermal efficiency and ex-
fuel due to its higher octane number. However, it is hard to use ethanol haust gas emissions. The experiments were conducted on a single cy-
as a compression ignition fuel due to its lower cetane number. linder direct injection agricultural diesel engine which runs at constant
Therefore, researchers have been trying to find suitable methods for speed and variable load conditions. Tests were also carried out with
incorporating ethanol into the compression ignition engine [9]. The neat diesel, rubber seed oil and rubber seed methyl ester oil for com-
most tried methods are blending and fumigation. In blending process, parison.
blended ethanol and diesel is injected into the combustion chamber
[10–13]. However, additional additives are required to stabilize the
2.1. Ethanol port injection strategy
miscibility of the blend. Hence, there is a limit to which ethanol can be
blended with diesel. In fumigation method, ethanol is inducted into the
In this experimental work both primary (diesel) and secondary fuel
intake air by using either carburetor or injector. This way air utilization
(ethanol) were injected through mechanical and electronic injection
can be improved since ethanol injection leads to increase of air density
system respectively. The secondary fuel injection system was controlled
because of a decrease in mixture temperature. However, this method
by a computerized fuel delivery system, while the electronic control
requires minor modifications, such as adding low-pressure fuel injector,
unit (ECU) takes information from various sensors and determines how
additional fuel tank, lines and control to the engine. Thus, this method
much secondary fuel the engine receives based on this data. The fuel
allows a larger amount of ethanol to be utilized since no additives are
required for each revolution per minute (RPM) and engine load con-
required for stability of the blend [14].
dition was located in the fuel map within the ECU. Once the amount of
Chauhan et al. [15] investigated the effect of inducting ethanol in a
fuel is identified, the ECU will adjust the fuel mixture for the engine and
small capacity diesel engine using constant volume carburetor. Results
air intake temperatures. Hence accurate amount of secondary fuel was
indicated a reduction in NOx, CO, CO2 and exhaust gas temperature,
injected and the time of injection also precisely controlled based on the
whereas HC emission increased for all loads. Abu-Qudais et al. [16]
inlet and exhaust valve opening.
performed an experimental study to compare the effect of ethanol in-
The injection system consists of an electronic pump that supplies
jection and ethanol-diesel blend on a single cylinder diesel engine. The
ethanol at a maximum pressure of 6 bar, a pressure control valve to
authors reported improvement in engine efficiency by 7.5% and re-
maintain the fuel supply pressure and a simple common pressure rail to
duction of 51% in soot mass concentration with ethanol injection
eliminate pressure fluctuations. A gasoline injector fitted very near to
method as compared to ethanol-diesel blend. Hansdah and Murugan
inlet manifold was used to inject a fine spray of ethanol during the
[17] produced bioethanol by fermenting Madhucaindica and carried out
suction stroke. The injector position can be seen in Fig. 1. The start of
experimental work on a single cylinder diesel engine at different flow
injection and duration of the injector opening was controlled by using
rates of ethanol injection using a vaporizer and a microprocessor-con-
an electronic controller.
trolled injector. The results indicated a longer ignition delay of 2–3 °CA,
reduction in NOx emissions by 24.2% and reduction in smoke emission
by 25% at full load as compared to diesel. Morsy [9] inducted ethanol/ 3. Experimental setup
water mixtures in the intake air and studied its effect on performance
and emission of a single cylinder diesel engine. NOx emissions de- Experiments were carried out on a Kirloskar TAF-1 single cylinder,
creased for ethanol/water mixtures as compared with neat ethanol in- air-cooled, direct injection, four-stroke diesel engine, the specification
jection, whereas HC, CO and fuel consumption increased with all of which is given in Table 2. A shunt wound DC generator, and a load
mixtures of ethanol and water.
A lot of work has been done on fumigating ethanol in a compression Table 1
ignition engine with diesel fuel operation. However, limited studies are Properties of test fuel.

available, where ethanol is fumigated in a biodiesel powered com- Property RSO RSOME Diesel Ethanol
pression ignition engine. This study tries to improve the performance of
a biodiesel powered engine with ethanol injection in the intake port. Specific gravity 0.922 0.8812 0.83 0.79
For comparison purpose, experiments were also performed with diesel. Kinematic Viscosity (cSt) 33.91 5.96 3.8 1.52
Flash Point (°C) 198 140 50 13
Calorific Value (MJ/kg) 37.5 41.07 42.9 26.9
Iodine Value 135.3 135.3 38.3 –
2. Present work
Acid Value 23.8 0.18 0.062 < 0.01
Cetane Number 37 49 47 8
The principle aim of the present experimental work is to improve

2
V.E. Geo et al. Fuel xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup. 1. Engine, 2.

Dynamometer, 3. Pressure sensor, 4. Charge amplifier, 5. Data ac-
10 9 quisition system 6. Exhaust gas analyzer, 7. Smoke meter, 8. Diesel
/RSO injector, 9. Diesel tank, 10. RSO tank, 11. Surge tank, 12. U-tube
manometer, 13. Ethanol injector, 14. Pressure gauge, 15. Pressure
11 Regulator, 16. Ethanol tank, 17. Pump, 18. Battery, 19. ECU, 20.
Switch, 21. Inlet manifold, 22. Exhaust manifold.

12
13 8
21 22
6

20 7
3
14
19 5
4
15 1
18
16
2
17

Table 2 volumetric airflow rate were measured using a 50 cm3 burette/stop-

Specification of test engine. watch and a U-tube manometer, respectively. The performance of the
engine was evaluated in terms of the brake thermal efficiency, brake
Make Kirloskar
power, specific energy consumption, and emission characteristics such
Type Single cylinder, CI, 4-stroke as HC, CO, NOx, and smoke. Diesel, RSO, and RSOME were directly
Type of Cooling Air Cooled injected in a diesel engine along with ethanol injection in the intake
Bore * Stroke 87.5 * 110 mm port at different flow rates. Based on brake thermal efficiency and
Compression Ratio 17.5:1
Piston Bowl Hemispherical
emissions, optimum injection timing and injection duration for ethanol
Rated Power 4.4 kW at 1500 rpm port injection were 10 ° ATDC and 40 °CA respectively.
Lubrication Oil SAE 40
Displacement volume 661.5 cc
4. Results and discussion
Fuel injector opening pressure 200 bar
Fuel injection timing 23 bTDC (static)
Arrangement of valves Overhead The results discussed in this section is with experiments conducted
Orientation Vertical on a single cylinder diesel engine running at a constant speed of
Intake Valve Opening 4.5° bTDC 1500 rpm at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of full load. The pilot fuel used
Intake Valve Closing 35.5° aBDC
is diesel, RSO, and RSOME with various energy share of ethanol in-
Exhaust Valve Opening 35.5° bBDC
Exhaust Valve Closing 4.5° aTDC jection in the intake port.

4.1. Brake thermal efficiency

bank was used for loading the engine. A three-way, hand operated, two-
position directional control valve was used for rapid switching between
diesel and test fuel. QROTECH, QRO-401 exhaust gas analyzer was used
to measure HC, CO, and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emission. Smoke
density was measured using a Bosch smoke meter.
A piezoelectric pressure transducer mounted on the cylinder head
was used for the measurement of in-cylinder pressure. An optical shaft
Ethanol energy share influences the brake thermal efficiency which
is shown in Fig. 2 for 100% & 75% load and Fig. 3 for 50% & 25% load.
The brake thermal efficiency is 29.9%, 27.9% and 26.6% in single fuel
operation (i.e. at 0% ethanol energy share) of diesel, RSOME and RSO.
32
Brake Thermal Efficiency (%)

position encoder was used to find the crank angle with1° resolution. A 31
data acquisition system was used to acquire the signal from both the 30
sensors and it was stored on a personal computer using A/D (analog to 29
digital) converters. Software was used to compute average pressure-
28
crank angle values for 100 consecutive cycles. From this, peak pressure,
27
the occurrence of peak pressure, the maximum rate of pressure rise and
heat release rate were calculated. 26
The fuel injection system consists of a gasoline injector, electronic 25
controller to operate the injector and an arrangement to supply ethanol 24
at different pressures. The injector was fitted on the cylinder head. 23
Diesel 100% RSOME 100% RSO 100%
Ethanol was injected into the intake port during the suction stroke at 22
3 bar pressure. The start of injection and duration of injection was Diesel 75% RSOME 75% RSO 75%
21
controlled with the help of an electronic controller. Fig. 1 shows the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
schematic diagram of the experimental setup. Ethanol Energy Share (%)
Experiments were conducted at a constant speed of 1500 rpm with
varying loads in steps of 25%. The volumetric fuel flow rate and the Fig. 2. Variation of Brake Thermal Efficiency at 75% load and full load with ethanol
injection.

3
V.E. Geo et al.
28
26
Brake Thermal Efficiency (%)
24
22
20
18
16
14
12 Diesel 50% RSOME 50%
Diesel 25% RSOME 25%
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Ethanol Energy Share (%)
Fig. 3. Variation of Brake Thermal Efficiency at 50% load and 25% load with ethanol
injection.
The reduction in brake thermal efficiency (BTE) with RSOME and RSO
is due to poor atomization of fuel on account of higher viscosity and
density as compared to diesel resulting in slower heat release during the
initial phase of combustion with RSOME and RSO. The brake thermal
efficiency increases with increase in ethanol energy share. As the
ethanol energy share increases, the temperature of the air-fuel mixture
decreases due to high volatility and latent heat of ethanol which tends
to increase its premixed charge density. The drop in temperature of air
also leads to a longer ignition delay, providing more premixed com-
bustion which improves the thermal efficiency. However, the increase
in ethanol energy share also increases the heat capacity of the air-fuel
mixture, which increases the temperature and reduces its density. As
observed from the Fig. 2, the effect of volatility and latent heat is
dominant until the ethanol energy share of 35.2%, 33.5%, and 31.6%,
at full load, for diesel, RSOME, and RSO respectively. The maximum
brake thermal efficiency achieved at full load at these ethanol energy
shares are 31%, 29.9% and 28.08% with diesel, RSOME and RSO, re-
spectively. With further increase in ethanol energy share, the effect of
the growth in heat capacity is more pronounced, leading to reduction in
air density and decrease in brake thermal efficiency. At part load con-
ditions (50% and 25% load), the increase in ethanol energy share has
little effect on thermal efficiency. The maximum brake thermal effi-
ciency at 50% load is 26.26% for diesel, 24.14% for RSOME and
22.88% for RSO with ethanol energy share of 47.25%, 41.35%, and
40.35% respectively.
4.2. Brake specific energy consumption
The variation in brake specific energy consumption (BSEC) with
ethanol energy share is shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Energy consumption at
full load with RSO (13.6 MJ/kWh) engine operation is higher than
RSOME (12.9 MJ/kWh) and diesel (12 MJ/kWh) in single fuel opera-
tion. This increase in BSEC with RSO and RSOME is due to low vola-
tility, high viscosity and density, which affects the mixture formation,
leading to dominant diffusion combustion phase. Also, the higher
density of vegetable oil leads to discharge of more fuel for the same
plunger displacement of the fuel injection pump. It is observed that
BSEC decreases with ethanol injection along with intake air. At 100%
load the BSEC decreases to 11.6 MJ/kWh, to 12 MJ/kWh and to
12.8 MJ/kWh for diesel, RSOME and RSO, with ethanol energy share of
35.2%, 33.5% and 31.6% respectively.
4.3. Exhaust gas temperature
The modulation in exhaust gas temperature due to the ethanol en-
ergy share is represented in Figs. 6 and 7. RSO and RSOME indicate
higher exhaust temperature than diesel at all loads. It is about 410 °C,
406 °C and 364 °C with RSO, RSOME and diesel in single fuel operation
Fuel xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
at full load. This is due to poor volatility and higher viscosity of bio-
diesel, resulting in dominant diffusion combustion phase. Increase in
ethanol energy share, reduces the exhaust temperature because of
higher specific heat of ethanol, thus improving the diffusion combus-
tion phase and reducing the late burning of biodiesel. Thus, there is
saving on exhaust gas energy loss and fuel consumption, resulting in
higher brake thermal efficiency, as shown in Fig. 2. At 50% load, the
exhaust gas temperature is 219 °C, 237 °C and 264 °C with diesel,
RSOME and RSO, respectively, with ethanol energy share of 47.25%,
45.63% and 43.45%, respectively. The exhaust gas temperature is
RSO 50% 342 °C, 375 °C and 384 °C for diesel, RSOME and RSO operation at
RSO 25% maximum thermal efficiency point at full load.
45 50 55
4.4. NOx emissions
Figs. 8 and 9 show the variation of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emis-
sions for diesel, RSOME and RSO with varying ethanol energy share. It
is observed that the NOx emission decreases with increase in engine
load. NOx emission at full load for neat RSO and RSOME is 6.9 g/kWh
and 9.63 g/kWh, respectively, which is lower when compared to diesel
(10.7 g/kWh). NOx emissions reduce due to reduced premixed burning
rate, which tends to slow the heat release. With the increase in ethanol
energy share, NOx increases for all loads. NOx formation in an ethanol
biodiesel dual fuel engine depends on several mechanisms. Firstly,
lower net heating value and higher evaporation-led cooling effect of
ethanol injection lowers the flame temperature and burning velocity,
thus suppressing the NOx formation. Secondly, increased oxygen con-
tent (ethanol as well as biodiesel) of the charge may contribute to the
higher NOx formation. Thirdly, ethanol injection leads to increase in
ignition delay, which may increase the burning of fuel in premixed
mode [18]. The gases burnt during premixed combustion are com-
pressed to a higher temperature, with the further rise in cylinder
pressure and temperature leading to further increase in NOx level.
During expansion, mixing of high temperature gas with air or cooled
burned gas leads to freezing of NOx chemistry with little decomposition
during the later stages [19], thus increasing the emissions. NOx emis-
sion at full load and maximum brake thermal efficiency point increased
1.467, 1.2 and 1.24 times higher with RSO, RSOME, and diesel than
single fuel operation. The NOx emissions at 50% load, as compared to
single fuel operation, increased 1.24, 1.09, and 1.12 times for RSO,
RSOME and diesel with ethanol energy share of 40.35%, 41.35% and
42.54% respectively.
4.5. HC emission
Figs. 10 and 11 portray the variation of unburnt hydrocarbon
emission with ethanol energy share for diesel, RSOME and RSO. Higher
HC emission levels are observed with RSO and RSOME compared to
neat diesel operation. HC emissions also increased with the increase in
16
15
BSEC (MJ/kWh)
14
13
12
11 Diesel 100% RSOME 100% RSO 100%
Diesel 75% RSOME 75% RSO 75%
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ethanol Energy Share (%)
Fig. 4. Variation of Brake Specific Energy Consumption at 75% load and full load with
ethanol injection.
4
V.E. Geo et al. Fuel xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

28 15
26 14

NOx Emissions (g/kWh)

24 13
BSEC (MJ/kWh)

12
22
11
20
10
18
9
16 8
14 7
Diesel 50% RSOME 50% RSO 50% Diesel 100% RSOME 100% RSO 100%
12 6
Diesel 25% RSOME 25% RSO 25% Diesel 75% RSOME 75% RSO 75%
10 5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ethanol Energy Share (%) Ethanol Energy Share (%)
Fig. 8. Variation of oxides of nitrogen emission at 75% load and full load with ethanol
Fig. 5. Variation of Brake Specific Energy Consumption at 50% load and 25% load with
injection.
ethanol injection.

420 16
Exhaust Gas Temperature (°C)

NOx Emissions (g/kWh)

400
14
380
360 12
340
320 10
300
8
280 Diesel 50% RSOME 50% RSO 50%
Diesel 100% RSOME 100% RSO 100% Diesel 25% RSOME 25% RSO 25%
260
Diesel 75% RSOME 75% RSO 75%
6
240 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Ethanol Energy Share (%)
Ethanol Energy Share (%)
Fig. 9. Variation of oxides of nitrogen emission at 50% load and 25% load with ethanol
Fig. 6. Variation of Exhaust Gas Temperature at 75% load and full load with ethanol injection.
injection.

1.5
280
Exhaust Gas Temperature (°C)

HC Emission (g/kWh)

260 1.3
240
1.1
220
0.9
200
180 0.7
160
0.5 Diesel 100% RSOME 100% RSO 100%
140 Diesel 50% RSOME 50% RSO 50%
Diesel 75% RSOME 75% RSO 75%
120 Diesel 25% RSOME 25% RSO 25% 0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ethanol Energy Share (%) Ethanol Energy Share (%)
Fig. 7. Variation of Exhaust Gas Temperature at 50% load and 25% load with ethanol Fig. 10. Variation of unburnt hydrocarbon emission at 75% load and full load with
injection. ethanol injection.

ethanol energy share. At full load, as compared to neat fuel mode, the
HC level increased to 1.75, 1.52 and 1.23 times with RSO, RSOME and
diesel at maximum brake thermal efficiency point. The increase in HC
level can be attributed to the formation of a quench layer of unburned
ethanol inside the combustion chamber that might have escaped out of
the combustion zone. Also, the combustion temperature is lowered due
to the cooling effect of ethanol. The lower combustion temperature thus
is not able to efficiently ignite the unburned ethanol during the ex-
pansion stroke, leading to incomplete combustion and higher HC
emission. Hydrocarbon emission also increases with increase in ethanol
energy share at part load conditions (25% and 50% load). At 50% load,
as compared to neat fuel mode, the emissions increased to 1.22, 1.38
and 1.43 times higher for diesel, RSOME and RSO, respectively at
ethanol energy share of 42.54%, 41.36% and 40.35%. Since, ethanol is
injected into the intake port only at 10°ATDC, the time available for
mixing of air and ethanol is less, hence regions of lean and rich fuel-air
mixtures exist, which may survive combustion to escape into the ex-
haust as unburned hydrocarbons
4.6. CO emission
The effect on CO emission under the influence of various loads and
ethanol energy share is depicted in Figs. 12 and 13. At full load, the CO
emission level for neat RSO and RSOME is 4.77 g/kWh and 3.626 g/

5
V.E. Geo et al. Fuel xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

2.4 8
Diesel 100% RSOME 100% RSO 100%
2.1 7
Diesel 75% RSOME 75% RSO 75%
HC Emission (g/kWh)

1.8 6

Smoke (BSU)
1.5 5
1.2 4
0.9 3

0.6 2
Diesel 50% RSOME 50% RSO 50% 1
0.3
Diesel 25% RSOME 25% RSO 25%
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ethanol Energy Share (%) Ethanol Energy Share (%)
Fig. 11. Variation of unburnt hydrocarbon emission at 50% load and 25% load with Fig. 14. Variation of smoke emission at 75% load and full load with ethanol injection.
ethanol injection.
3
8 Diesel 50% RSOME 50% RSO 50%
2.7
Diesel 25% RSOME 25% RSO 25%
2.4
7
CO Emission (g/kWh)

2.1

Smoke (BSU)
1.8
6
1.5
5 1.2
0.9
4 0.6
0.3
3 0
Diesel 100% RSOME 100% RSO 100%
Diesel 75% RSOME 75% RSO 75% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Ethanol Energy Share (%)
Ethanol Energy Share (%) Fig. 15. Variation of smoke emission at 50% load and 25% load with ethanol injection.

Fig. 12. Variation of carbon monoxide emission at 75% load and full load with ethanol
injection. 80
78
Cylinder Peak Pressure (bar)

14
76
12 74
CO Emission (g/kWh)

72
10
70
8
68
6 66 Diesel 100% RSOME 100% RSO 100%
Diesel 75% RSOME 75% RSO 75%
64
4 Diesel 50% RSOME 50% RSO 50% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Diesel 25% RSOME 25% RSO 25%
2 Ethanol Energy Share (%)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Fig. 16. Variation of cylinder peak pressure at 75% load and full load with ethanol in-
Ethanol Energy Share (%) jection.

Fig. 13. Variation of carbon monoxide emission at 50% load and 25% load with ethanol
injection.
kWh, which is higher than diesel by 51.6% and 15.15%, respectively.
Higher CO emission with RSO is due to poor combustion caused by high
viscosity and poor atomization characteristics of RSO. CO emission
level with RSOME is lower due to the reduction in viscosity of RSOME,
which is comparable with diesel. Ethanol injection also tends to in-
crease CO emission levels. As compared to single fuel operation, the CO
emission increased 1.24, 1.17 and 1.02 times with diesel, RSOME and
RSO respectively at maximum brake thermal efficiency point. The
emission level at 50% load increased 1.43, 1.47 and 1.34 times for
diesel, RSOME and RSO, respectively with ethanol energy share of
42.54%, 41.36%, and 40.35%. It is also observed that the increase in
load, decreases CO emissions. In CI engines, CO emission is less due to
lean air-fuel mixture and higher combustion temperatures. However,
CO emission increases with dual fuel operation as the combustion
temperature is lower at low loads as compared to high loads. Premixing
of ethanol with air in intake port further reduces the temperature of the
mixture. The primary fuel injected in the compression stroke into this
mixture of air and ethanol needs to vaporize and find oxygen molecules
in suitable temperature to become an ignition source for rest of the
mixture. As the time available for the complete combustion is less, re-
sulting in the reaction, stopping at the intermediate phase and hence
increasing the CO emission.

6
V.E. Geo et al. Fuel xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

70 80
Diesel
Cylinder Peak Pressure (bar)

68 70 RSO

Heat Release Rate (J/°CA)

66 60 RSO-31.5% Ethanol
RSOME-33.5% Ethanol
64 50

62 40
30
60
20
58
Diesel 50% RSOME 50% RSO 50% 10
56
Diesel 25% RSOME 25% RSO 25% 0
54 330 350 370 390 410
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 -10
Crank Angle (°)
Ethanol Energy Share (%)
Fig. 20. Variation of heat release at full load with different modes of engine operation.
Fig. 17. Variation of cylinder peak pressure at 50% load and 25% load with ethanol
injection.
2000

Cumulative Heat Release (J)

Diesel
1800
6 RSO
1600
Maximum Rate of Pressure Rise

RSO-31.5% Ethanol
1400 RSOME-33.5% Ethanol
5 1200
1000
(bar/°CA)

800
4 600
400
200
3
Diesel 100% RSOME 100% RSO 100% 0
-200 330 350 370 390 410
Diesel 75% RSOME 75% RSO 75%
2 Crank Angle (°)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Fig. 21. Variation of cumulative heat release at full load with different modes of engine
Ethanol Energy Share (%) operation.

Fig. 18. Variation of maximum rate of pressure rise at 75% load and full load with
ethanol injection. 14
Ignition Delay (°CA)

5 12
Maximum Rate of Pressure Rise

4 10
(bar/°CA)

8
3

6
Diesel 100% RSOME 100% RSO 100%
2
Diesel 75% RSOME 75% RSO 75%
Diesel 50% RSOME 50% RSO 50% 4
Diesel 25% RSOME 25% RSO 25% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
1
Ethanol Energy Share (%)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Ethanol Energy Share (%) Fig. 22. Variation of ignition delay at 75% load and full load with ethanol injection.

Fig. 19. Variation of maximum rate of pressure rise at 50% load and 25% load with
ethanol injection. full load. Cooling of the charge due to ethanol injection increases the
ignition delay, which gives more time for mixing of fuel with ethanol –
air mixture that improves air utilization and reduces smoke. Also, with
4.7. Smoke emission
increasing ethanol share, the diesel/biodiesel share decreases. There-
fore, less fuel burns in diffusion phase and it combusts together with the
Figs. 14 and 15 demonstrate the effect of ethanol substitution on
air-ethanol mixture at a higher rate, with high availability of oxygen
engine smoke. The smoke level is higher for RSO and RSOME as com-
leading to smoke reduction. Smoke level at 50% load for ethanol energy
pared to diesel due to its poor atomizing and mixture forming tendency.
share of 42.5%, 41.35% and 40.35% with diesel, RSOME and RSO as
At full load, the smoke density is 6.1 BSU with RSO, 5.5 BSU with
primary fuel reduced to 0.6 BSU, 1.2 BSU and 1.7 BSU respectively.
RSOME and 3.4 BSU with diesel in single fuel operation. However, in
dual fuel mode with RSO, RSOME and diesel along with ethanol in-
jection, there is a significant reduction in smoke emission at all loads. 4.8. Peak pressure
The smoke level reduced to 3.4 BSU, 3.1 BSU and 2.5 BSU with RSO,
RSOME and diesel, respectively at maximum thermal efficiency point at Figs. 16 and 17 shows the maximum combustion pressure of the
three fuels tested with increasing ethanol injection at various loads.

7
V.E. Geo et al. Fuel xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

18 observed at 50% load is 68.3 bar, 66.6 bar and 64 bar with diesel,
RSOME and RSO respectively for ethanol energy share of 42.5%,
16
Ignition Delay (°CA)

41.36% and 40.35%.

14
4.9. Maximum rate of pressure rise
12

10 Figs. 18 and 19 show the maximum rate of pressure rise for the three
fuels with ethanol energy share at 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% load. RSO
8 shows the lowest value of the rate of pressure rise (3.6 bar/°CA) com-
pared with RSOME (4.1 bar/°CA) and diesel (5.2 bar/°CA) in single fuel
6 Diesel 50% RSOME 50% RSO 50%
operation. Injection of ethanol in the intake manifold increases the rate
Diesel 25% RSOME 25% RSO 25%
4 of pressure rise. It is 4.3 bar/°CA for RSO, 4.8 bar/°CA for RSOME and
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 5.8 bar/°CA for diesel at maximum thermal efficiency point. The in-
Ethanol Energy Share (%) crease in peak pressure rate is due to increased heat release rate, longer
ignition delay and shorter combustion duration.
Fig. 23. Variation of ignition delay at 50% load and 25% load with ethanol injection.

4.10. Heat release rate

48
Combustion Duration (°CA)

46 Heat release rate at full load for maximum brake thermal efficiency
of RSO and RSOME with ethanol injection along with neat diesel and
44 RSO are compared in Fig. 20. Diesel engine operation results in higher
42 premixed combustion as compared to RSO, which has higher diffusion
burning phase. Higher viscosity of straight vegetable oil reduces the
40
mixing of fuel spray and air, thus less fuel is prepared for ignition in the
38 initial stages of combustion, which
36 leads to lower the premixed combustion. Ethanol injection during
Diesel 100% RSOME 100% RSO 100%
RSO and RSOME operation increases the premixed combustion phase
34 and gradually decreases the diffusion combustion phase and the
Diesel 75% RSOME 75% RSO 75%
32 burning rate is controlled by fuel vapour – air mixing process. The in-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 crease in premixed heat release rate depends not only on the amount of
fuel accumulated during ignition delay, but it also depends on the
Ethanol Energy Share (%)
number of ignition centres developed by the primary fuel. Once the
Fig. 24. Variation of combustion duration at 75% load and full load with ethanol in- flame fronts are developed, the presence of oxygen in ethanol helps in
jection. improving the rate of combustion.

42 4.11. Cumulative heat release

Combustion Duration (°CA)

40
Fig. 21 illustrates the cumulative heat release at full load engine
38 operation for neat diesel, RSO, 31.5% ethanol energy share (maximum
efficiency energy share) with RSO as pilot fuel and 33.5% ethanol en-
36 ergy share with RSOME as primary fuel. Due to higher ignition delay
and less fuel prepared, the premixed combustion is lower with RSO
34
engine operation, resulting in lower cumulative heat release during
32 initial combustion. As the heating value of RSO is lower, more amount
of fuel supplied to compensate the power. Hence, the injected fuel
30 Diesel 50% RSOME 50% RSO 50%
burns during later part of combustion, leads to higher cumulative heat
Diesel 25% RSOME 25% RSO 25% release. Ethanol injection with RSO in the intake port reduces the cu-
28
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 mulative heat release, which is further reduced with RSOME-ethanol
Ethanol Energy Share (%) dual fuel mode. It is evident from the energy share that more of RSO is
injected that ethanol compared to RSOME-ethanol mode. This leads to
Fig. 25. Variation of combustion duration at 50% load and 25% load with ethanol in- higher cumulative heat release for RSO than RSOME. It is also observed
jection.
that cumulative heat release is higher in the initial stages of combustion
with RSOME and ethanol injection as compared to RSO and ethanol
With no ethanol injection, diesel has higher peak pressure (75.5 bar) as injection. This is due to higher premixed combustion with RSOME as
compared to RSOME (74.3 bar) and RSO (72 bar). The reduction in compared to RSO. The lower heating value of ethanol is another reason
peak pressure is due to deterioration in combustion caused by improper for the reduction in the cumulative heat release
atomization of the fuel. Injection of ethanol in the intake port improves
the peak combustion pressure for the three fuels at all loads. The high 4.12. Ignition delay
latent heat of ethanol reduces the air temperature, which in turn in-
creases the ignition delay, allowing the accumulation of oxygenated Figs. 22 and 23 present the variation of the ignition delay at dif-
ethanol. The injected fuel thus gets more oxygen and time to burn, ferent ethanol energy share with increasing loads for diesel, RSOME
resulting in rapid heat release and high peak cylinder pressure. At and RSO. RSO has a longer ignition delay as compared to RSOME and
maximum efficiency point, the peak cylinder pressure is 78.6 bar, diesel. The increase in ignition delay with RSO is due to poor volatility
77.4 bar and 76.2 bar for diesel, RSOME and RSO, respectively. At part and high viscosity, which causes slow vaporization and mixing. In-
loads, the peak pressures are low due to leaner ethanol air mixture and creasing the ethanol injection in the intake port raises the ignition delay
weak ignition source, since less pilot fuel is injected. The peak pressure further. The ignition delay for RSO is 11°CA at ethanol energy share of

8
V.E. Geo et al.
32.54% and it is 9°CA for RSOME at ethanol energy share of 35.56%. It
is 8°CA for diesel operation at 38.26% of ethanol energy share. At high
loads, the ignition delay is shorter due to higher in-cylinder tempera-
ture and reduced cooling effect of ethanol. Also, the premixed com-
bustion phase becomes longer with increasing ethanol energy share.
Thus more fuel burns during the premixed combustion phase, leading to
higher in-cylinder pressure and higher peak heat release rate. At 50%
load, the ignition delay is 15°CA, 14°CA and 12°CA for RSO, RSOME
and diesel at ethanol energy share of 43.45%, 45.63% and 47.25%,
respectively. High latent heat of vaporization of ethanol reduces the
charge temperature and hence increases the ignition delay especially at
low loads, thus leading to combustion occurring after top dead centre
and most of the fuel burning in the expansion stroke
4.13. Combustion duration
Figs. 24 and 25 indicate combustion duration of the three fuels
tested at different ethanol energy shares at full load, 75% load, 50%
load and 25% load. The combustion duration at full load without
ethanol injection is higher for RSO (47 °CA) compared with RSOME
(44 °CA) and diesel (41 °CA). The longer duration with RSO is due to
longer diffusion combustion phase. It can be seen that addition of
ethanol reduces the combustion duration for all tested fuels. The
combustion duration at full load and maximum thermal efficiency point
for RSO is 44 °CA, for RSOME it is 42°CA, and for diesel, it is 39 °CA.
The combustion duration at 25% load for RSO, RSOME and diesel is
34 °CA, 33 °CA, 31 °CA, respectively with ethanol energy shares of
48.35%, 51.55% and 52.65%. Premixed ethanol and air form number of
ignition centers in combustion chamber, resulting in rapid combustion
and high heat release rate, thereby reducing the combustion duration
5. Conclusions
Experimental investigations were conducted on a single cylinder
diesel engine fuelled with RSO, RSOME and diesel with varying ethanol
energy share at 25%, 50%, 75% and full load. The conclusions drawn
are,
• Ethanol injection increases the brake thermal efficiency with all test
fuels due to increased premixed combustion rates.
• At full load, with ethanol injection, the brake thermal efficiency of
RSO and RSOME increases by 10.4% and 7.4% at ethanol energy
share of 31.56% and 33.45%.
•
NOx emission increases from 6.9 g/kWh to 10.24 g/kWh for RSO
with 0–32.5% of ethanol energy share. For RSOME it rises from
9.6 g/kWh to 11.7 g/kWh with 0–35.6% of ethanol energy share.
Higher oxygen content due to the presence of ethanol leads to in-
crease in NOx emission.
• At full load, the smoke level is reduced from 6.1 BSU to 3.4 BSU at
maximum thermal efficiency point of ethanol energy share with
RSO. Similar trends were observed with RSOME and diesel.
• An increase in HC and CO levels are observed at all loads with the
ethanol injection for all fuels. The values with RSO are higher than
other fuels on account of the formation of quench layer of unburned
ethanol that may have escaped out of the combustion zone.
•
The peak cylinder pressure and maximum rate of pressure rise
Fuel xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
increases with an increase in ethanol energy share at all loads.
• Premixed combustion duration is higher with ethanol injection than
neat RSO and RSOME because of the early burning of ethanol.
• Ignition delay increases for all fuels with ethanol injection due to
lower cetane number of ethanol.
• Combustion duration for RSO is higher than diesel. However, in-
jection of ethanol leads to decrease in combustion duration. This
decrease is because of faster diffusion combustion phase.
It can thus be concluded that ethanol injection in diesel engine
fuelled with rubber seed oil and its ester results in improvement in
combustion performance and increase in brake thermal efficiency. It
also helps in reducing smoke emission at all loads.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.036.
References
[1] Avinash A, Subramaniam D, Murugesan A. Bio-diesel—A global scenario. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:517–27.
[2] Agarwal AK. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal
combustion engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2007;33(3):233–71.
[3] Babu AK, Devaradjane G. Vegetable oils and their derivatives as fuels for CI engines:
an overview. SAE Technical Paper Series; 2003.
[4] Ziejewski M, Goettier H, Pratt GL. Influence of vegetable oil based alternate fuels on
residue deposits and components wear in a diesel engine. SAE Technical Paper
Series; 1986.
[5] Sahoo PK, Das LM. Combustion analysis of Jatropha, Karanja and Polanga based
biodiesel as fuel in a diesel engine. Fuel 2009;88(6):994–9.
[6] Altın R, Çetinkaya S, Yücesu HS. The potential of using vegetable oil fuels as fuel for
diesel engines. Energy Convers Manage 2001;42(5):529–38.
[7] Reshad AS, Tiwari P, Goud VV. Extraction of oil from rubber seeds for biodiesel
application: optimization of parameters. Fuel 2015;150:636–44.
[8] Geo VE, Nagarajan G, Nagalingam B. Studies on improving the performance of
rubber seed oil fuel for diesel engine with DEE port injection. Fuel
2010;89(11):3559–67.
[9] Morsy MH. Assessment of a direct injection diesel engine fumigated with ethanol/
water mixtures. Energy Convers Manage 2015;94:406–14.
[10] Bilgin A, Durgun O, Sahin Z. The effects of diesel-ethanol blends on diesel engine
performance. Energy Sources 2002;24(5):431–40.
[11] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Herreros JM. Emissions from a diesel–bioethanol blend in an
automotive diesel engine. Fuel 2008;87(1):25–31.
[12] Kim H, Choi B. Effect of ethanol–diesel blend fuels on emission and particle size
distribution in a common-rail direct injection diesel engine with warm-up catalytic
converter. Renewable Energy 2008;33(10):2222–8.
[13] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Kakaras EC, Giakoumis EG. Effects of etha-
nol–diesel fuel blends on the performance and exhaust emissions of heavy duty DI
diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49(11):3155–62.
[14] Imran A, Varman M, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA. Review on alcohol fumigation on
diesel engine: a viable alternative dual fuel technology for satisfactory engine
performance and reduction of environment concerning emission. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2013;26:739–51.
[15] Chauhan BS, Kumar N, Pal SS, Du Jun Y. Experimental studies on fumigation of
ethanol in a small capacity Diesel engine. Energy 2011;36(2):1030–8.
[16] Abu-Qudais M, Haddad O, Qudaisat M. The effect of alcohol fumigation on diesel
engine performance and emissions. Energy Convers Manage 2000;41(4):389–99.
[17] Hansdah D, Murugan S. Bioethanol fumigation in a DI diesel engine. Fuel
2014;130:324–33.
[18] Zhang ZH, Cheung CS, Chan TL, Yao CD. Experimental investigation of regulated
and unregulated emissions from a diesel engine fueled with Euro V diesel fuel and
fumigation methanol. Atmos Environ 2010;44(8):1054–61.
[19] Heywood JB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. New York: McGraw-Hill;
2002.