energies

Article
Experimental Investigation of Performance, Emission
and Combustion Characteristics of a Common-Rail
Diesel Engine Fuelled with Bioethanol as a Fuel
Additive in Coconut Oil Biodiesel Blends
Y.H. Teoh 1, * , K.H. Yu 1 , H.G. How 2 and H.-T. Nguyen 3
1 School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal,
Penang, Malaysia; yukokhwa@usm.my
2 Department of Engineering, School of Engineering, Computing and Built Environment, KDU Penang
University College, 32, Jalan Anson, 10400 Georgetown, Penang, Malaysia; heoygeok.how@kdupg.edu.my
3 Ho Chi Minh City University of Food Industry (HUFI), Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam;
tho.nh@hufi.edu.vn
* Correspondence: yewhengteoh@gmail.com or yewhengteoh@usm.my




Received: 19 March 2019; Accepted: 8 May 2019; Published: 22 May 2019


Abstract: In the present study, the effects of adding of bioethanol as a fuel additive to a coconut
biodiesel-diesel fuel blend on engine performance, exhaust emissions, and combustion characteristics
were studied in a medium-duty, high-pressure common-rail turbocharged four-cylinder diesel engine
under different torque conditions. The test fuels used were fossil diesel fuels, B20 (20% biodiesel
blend), B20E5 (20% biodiesel + 5% bioethanol blend), and B20E10 (20% biodiesel + 10% bioethanol
blend). The experimental results demonstrated that there was an improvement in the brake specific
energy consumption (BSEC) and brake thermal efficiency (BTE) of the blends at the expense of brake
specific fuel consumption (BSFC) for each bioethanol blend. An increment in nitrogen oxide (NOx)
across the entire load range, except at low load conditions, was found with a higher percentage of the
bioethanol blend. Also, it was found that simultaneous smoke and carbon monoxide (CO) emission
reduction from the baseline levels of petroleum diesel fuel is attainable by utilizing all types of fuel
blends. In terms of combustion characteristics, the utilization of bioethanol blended fuels presented a
rise in the peak in-cylinder pressure and peak heat release rate (HRR) at a low engine load, especially
for the B20E10 blend. Furthermore, the B20E10 showed shorter combustion duration, which reduced
by an average of 1.375 ◦ CA compared to the corresponding baseline diesel. This study therefore
showed that the B20E10 blend exhibited great improvements in the diesel engine, thus demonstrating
that bioethanol is a feasible fuel additive for coconut biodiesel-diesel blends.

Keywords: Combustion; bioethanol; biodiesel; common-rail; emissions

1. Introduction
Increased modernisation, industrialisation and development have led to a huge demand for
energy, and the major energy resources are from non-renewable fossil fuels such as petroleum, natural
gas and coal. According to the British Petroleum (BP) Energy Output Report, the world’s primary
energy demand is predicted to increase by 41% between 2012 and 2030, with growth averaging 1.5%
per annum [1]. In reality, the remaining liquid fuel stock can only sustain the need for standard daily
work practices until the year 2023 [2]. Furthermore, growing concern about the plunge of the petroleum
price as well as severe environmental issues, such as global warming, climate change, ozone depletion,
desertification, etc., have also encouraged more research into clean alternative fuels [3]. Biodiesel is

Energies 2019, 12, 1954; doi:10.3390/en12101954 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 1954 2 of 17

claimed to be one of the most promising and notable renewable alternative fuels. Researchers have
studied the potential of biodiesel to be used in the conventional diesel engine for years [4–6]. Biodiesel
consists of alkyl monoesters of fatty acids and can be derived from natural resources such as vegetable
oils and animal fats [7]. Most importantly, biodiesel works well in the engine with minor or even no
modifications, meanwhile it is harmless and can be decomposed naturally [8].
Nevertheless, there are other concerns associated with the physicochemical properties of biodiesel
that might lead to potential damage to the diesel engine in long term operation. For instance, the high
viscosity of biodiesel fuel can lead to poor atomisation and consequently result in inferior in-cylinder
air-fuel mixing [9]. Several studies conducted by researchers showed that the higher viscosity of
biodiesel negatively affects its combustion characteristics. Dhar and Agarwal [10] investigated on the
use of Karanja biodiesel and its blends in a multi-cylinder diesel engine. The authors observed that the
cylinder pressure dropped with an increase in the biodiesel blend ratio because of the increased fuel
viscosity. Moreover, a recent review study by Balamurugan et al. [11] on the use of corn oil biodiesel
in diesel engines also deduced that the high viscosity and density of biodiesel decreased the spray
characteristics and thereby resulted in a lower peak cylinder pressure. Another concerning issue is
that the tendency to increase carbon deposits on the fuel injector when biodiesel blends are employed
is also a hindrance to the use of biodiesel as a fuel in compression-ignition (CI) engines [12].
In consideration of the above-mentioned issues, some researchers have proposed the use of fuel
additives to improve biodiesel-diesel properties like viscosity, flash point and pour point etc. [13,14]. It
has been reported that the addition of an alcohol-based fuel as the additive in the biodiesel-diesel fuel
blends indicated a remarkable improvement in the combustion characteristics, as well as the engine-out
emissions [15–18]. Besides, alcohol-based fuel also provides many benefits to the environment and
can stimulate economic growth in rural areas, as well as reducing the demand for the fossil fuel
utilization [19]. Furthermore, alcohol fuel is considered as a potential alternative fuel for CI engines
due to their favourable characteristics such as lower viscosity, higher heat of vaporisation and laminar
flame propagation speed properties, which make it suitable for use as a blended fuel with conventional
diesel [20,21].
From an environmental point of view, oxygenated alcohol fuel, such as bioethanol, is a
biodegradable resource and plays a role in reducing net greenhouse gas emissions [22]. Bioethanol is
renewable and can be produced from the grown energy crops, e.g., vegetable biomass (first generation
bioethanol) such as corn, sugarcane molasses, barley, wheat, sweet sorghum, cassava, beet etc. [23,24].
The second generation of bioethanol is derived primarily from non-edible feedstocks derived from
lignocellulosic biomass such as waste woods, agricultural and forest residues etc. [23,25,26]. It has
received much interest because the adopted feedstock is abundant, low-cost and does not compete with
food crops [27,28]. In addition, more than one-third of the ethanol is made up of oxygen molecules
that aid the enhancement of the combustion process, thereby reducing the emissions of particulate
matter in CI engines [29,30]. However, ethanol has the limitation of its solubility in conventional diesel
fuel [31]. It was claimed that this factor depends on the amount of hydrocarbon (HC) content in the
diesel fuel, the wax content as well as the room temperature [30].
Several experimental studies have been conducted to examine the potential of various types of
oxygenated fuels as a partial replacement for diesel fuel in CI engines. Yilmaz et al. [32] studied the
engine characteristics fuelled with the blend of diesel, waste oil biodiesel, soybean oil and alcohol. They
observed an improved outcome in reduced nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by 11.9% but brake specific
fuel consumption (BSFC) was found to be increased for the propanol blended fuel. Yilmaz [33] also
conducted another study to compare the difference between the biodiesel-diesel blends of methanol
and ethanol. The results showed that the methanol blended fuel emitted less carbon monoxide (CO)
and HC compared to the baseline diesel with the expense of nitrogen monoxide (NO) emission. On the
other hand, ethanol blended fuel exhibited opposite trends in emissions. Moreover, Mat Yasin et al. [34]
investigated the engine performance for the blend of methanol, diesel and palm oil biodiesel. They
deduced that the addition of methanol resulted in the rises in BSFC and the slight increments in
Energies 2019, 12, 1954 3 of 17

the emission of CO, but with the improvements in the NOx emission. Furthermore, Tan et al. [35]
evaluated the effects of the addition of bioethanol in a biodiesel -diesel fuel blend. It was found that
the emissions of CO, carbon dioxide (CO2 ) and NOx can be reduced at certain engine conditions with
the bioethanol fuel blend, but with an increase of BSFC as compared to the baseline diesel.
In another study [36], the influence of different percentages of butanol from 5% to 20% in the diesel
blends on particulate emissions of a single cylinder, direct injection (DI) and stationary diesel engine
was investigated. The results indicated that butanol blended fuels can reduce PM2.5 (particles less than
2.5 micrometers in diameter) mass and element carbon emissions with a greater butanol fraction in
the blends. The total number of concentrations of volatile and non-volatile particles was effectively
reduced for fuel blends. However, the number of particles with diameter less than 15 nm increased
for the 15% and 20% butanol blends at low engine loads. The increased in total polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons emission was also observed with the higher proportion of blend fuels. Karabektas and
Hosoz [37] also examined the effect of isobutanol–diesel blends in a naturally aspirated, DI diesel
engine at full-load conditions with engine speed ranging from 1200 to 2800 rpm. As expected, the
results showed that the isobutanol blend fuels produced lower brake power but higher BSFC. The
10% isobutanol blended fuel resulted in the minimal rise in brake thermal efficiency (BTE) at high
engine speeds. In addition, the alcohol also reduced the CO and NOx emissions with the considerable
expense in higher HC emission.
In previous studies, most researchers have focused on the potential of biodiesels as the alternative
fuels to replace conventional diesel fuel. Although there are some researches on the use of an alcohol
additive in the biodiesel-diesel blends, most of the outcomes are based on the engine performance
and the exhaust emissions only. The literature reviews show that there is lack of research regarding
combustion characteristics, especially for the coconut biodiesel blends with an oxygenated bioethanol
additive in a common-rail diesel engine. Therefore, this study was conducted with blends of bioethanol,
coconut biodiesel and diesel in a common-rail, DI diesel engine as an attempt to fill the research gap.
In this research, the coconut biodiesel also acts as a co-solvent in the bioethanol–diesel fuels for
stabilising and preventing phase separation. Also, the 20% biodiesel blend was chosen due to its
optimum performance in terms of its engine compatibility and improved emissions compared to other
blend ratios, as reported by other authors [38,39]. The bioethanol used was also derived from the
natural product of sugarcane, which is biodegradable and friendly to the environment [40]. Notably,
the feasibility of the bioethanol as the fuel additive was ascertained via this study.

2. Methodology

2.1. Biodiesel Production

The experiments were conducted in Engines Laboratory, School of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). The coconut oil biodiesel employed in the present study was obtained
through a two-step transesterification process. Firstly, esterification process of the coconut oil with
an acid catalyst, followed by a base-catalysed transesterification. Sulfuric acid (H2 SO4 ) is used in
conversion to reduce the free fatty acid (FFA) percentage in the coconut oil to maximum 2% by weight.
Then, the resultant oil was poured into a reactor, which was heated to 60 ◦ C. Concurrently, a mixture of
methanol (40% by volume) and H2 SO4 catalyst (1% by volume) was premixed and made ready before
adding it to the coconut oil. An overhead electrical powered stirrer with 800 rpm rotational speed was
constantly applied throughout the two hour stirring process. Likewise, during the stirring process, the
temperature of the reactor was kept the same at 60 ◦ C. After that, water and methanol residues in the
mixture were separated from the product in a separation funnel for 4 h. Distillation process was also
employed on the esterified oil by using a rotary evaporator. This step was carried out under vacuum
distillation with evaporator temperature maintained at 60 ◦ C to eliminate the presence of methanol
and water in the oil.
Energies 2019, 12, 1954 4 of 17

Upon the completion of esterification process, the FFA content was measured and it was observed
that the value is lower than 2% by weight. Then, the volume and density of esterified oil was carefully
measured with a measuring cylinder and density meter, respectively. The oil was then transferred and
processed in a jacket reactor at 60 ◦ C using heating circulator water bath. Then 1% by weight of alkali
catalyst (potassium hydroxide, KOH) and methanol (30% vol.) were thoroughly mixed until all the
catalyst had been fully dissolved. After that, the prepared mixtures of methanol and catalyst were
added into the preheated esterified oil. Similar to the aforementioned stirring process, the resultant
mixture was stirred with a stirring speed of 800 rpm. The reactor temperature was maintained at the
preheated temperature throughout the two hour process.
The end products which consisted of coconut methyl ester and glycerol were then separated using
a separation funnel (Manufacturer: FAVORIT, Malaysia). The separated coconut biodiesel was rinsed
with distilled water at 50 ◦ C; the impurities which settled at the bottom of the separation funnel were
discharged and removed. Anhydrous sodium sulphate was used to dry the coconut methyl ester. The
final product was then filtered using a filter paper and further purified in a rotary evaporator at 60 ◦ C.

2.2. Fuel Properties Test and Analysis

The diesel fuel employed in this study was acquired from local automotive fuel supplier in
Malaysia. The biodiesel was derived from coconut oil and produced through alkaline-catalysed
transesterification as discussed above. Besides, the bioethanol fuel with high purity (≥99.8%) which
produced by the fermentation of sugarcane was procured from Chemical Industries (Malaya) Sdn.
Bhd., Malaysia. The main properties of each of the blend feedstocks were listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Main properties of blending feedstock.

Properties Unit Diesel Coconut Biodiesel Bioethanol Test Method

◦C
Kinematic viscosity @ 40 mm2 s−1 3.51 4.1 1.08 D445
Density @ 15 ◦ C kgm−3 851.9 886.2 794.0 D127
Calorific value MJkg−1 45.31 38.1 29.0 D240
Flash point ◦C 71.5 115.5 14 D93
Cetane number - 52 55.9 5–8 D6890
Carbon wt.% 88 78 52 D5291
Hydrogen wt.% 13 12 13 D5292
Oxygen wt.% 0 11 35 D5293

The fuel test results indicated lower calorific values for neat coconut biodiesel (B100) and
bioethanol, which were approximately 16% and 36% lower than baseline diesel fuel, respectively.
Besides, the oxygen content of bioethanol was the highest among the neat fuels. As can be seen,
approximately 35 wt.% of bioethanol was made up of oxygen molecules compared to 11 wt.% of that
for coconut biodiesel, while negligible oxygen can be found in diesel. Furthermore, the viscosity of
the coconut biodiesel was around 3.8-fold higher than that of the bioethanol. In this research, three
different fuel blends were prepared, and their primary physicochemical properties are listed in Table 2.
As can be seen, all the fuel property tests were carried out according to American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) standards.

Table 2. The composition and fuel properties of tested fuels.

Fuels Unit B20 B20E5 B20E10 Test Method

Diesel %(v/v) 80 75 70 -
Methyl ester %(v/v) 20 20 20 -
Bioethanol %(v/v) 0 5 10 -
Kinematic viscosity @ 40 ◦ C mm2 s−1 3.74 3.33 2.98 D445
Density @ 15 ◦ C kgm−3 859.6 856 852.1 D127
Calorific value MJkg−1 43.89 43.12 42.25 D240
Energies 2019, 12, 1954 5 of 17

2.3. Engine Setup and Instrumentation

Experiments in this study were conducted with a four-cylinder, common-rail, high-pressure
turbocharged diesel engine. The specifications of the test engine are depicted in Table 3, while
Figure 1 shows the illustration of the experimental set-up. To analyse the fuel combustion process, a
Kistler 6058A piezoelectric sensor was employed in the engine to monitor the in-cylinder pressure.
The pressure sensor signal was sent to a data acquisition unit (DAQ) after amplification using a
6058A piezoelectric
DAQ-Charge-B sensor
charge was employed
amplifier. For each intestthe engine
point, datatofrom
monitor the in-cylinder
100 successive enginepressure. The
cycles were
pressure sensor signal was sent to a data acquisition unit (DAQ) after amplification using
recorded and analysed. On the other hand, exhaust emission measurements were carried out using an a DAQ-
Charge-B
AVL charge amplifier.
gas analyser For each
and a portable test opacity
smoke point, data from
meter. 100engine
The successive engine cycles were
was programmed recorded
to operate at a
and analysed. On the other hand, exhaust emission measurements were carried out using
constant speed of 2000 rpm with engine torque varying between 20 and 120 Nm in 20 Nm increments. an AVL
gas analyser and a portable smoke opacity meter. The engine was programmed to operate at a
constant speed of 2000 rpm withTable
engine torque varying
3. Specifications between
of the 20 and 120 Nm in 20 Nm increments.
test engine.

Engine TypeTable 3. Specifications

Diesel,
of the Direct Injection, Turbocharged
test engine.
Number
Engineof cylinders
Type 4
Diesel, direct injection, turbocharged
Number of valves per cylinder
Number of cylinders 2 4
Number of valves
Boreper cylinder 76.0 mm 2
Bore
Stroke 80.576.0
mmmm
Stroke
Maximum power 48 kW @80.5 4000mm rpm
Maximum power 48 kW @ 4000 rpm
Maximum
Maximum torquetorque 160 Nm160 Nm2000
@ @ 2000rpmrpm

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experiment setup.

3. Calculations
3. Calculations
3.1. Engine Performance
3.1. Engine Performance
The engine performance in this experiment was compared based on BSFC, brake specific energy
The engine performance in this experiment was compared based on BSFC, brake specific energy
consumption (BSEC) and BTE achieved. These parameters can be determined using the equations
consumption (BSEC) and BTE achieved. These parameters can be determined using the equations
below: [41,42].
below: [41, 42]. Fuel Consumption
BSFC (gkW −1 h−1 ) = (1)
-1 -1 Fuel Brake
Consumption
Power
BSFC (gkW hCalorific)= Value xPower
Fuel Consumption (1)
BSEC (MJkW −1 h−1 ) = Brake (2)
Brake Power
-1 -1 Calorific Value x× 100
Fuel Consumption
BSEC BTE
(MJkW
(%) =h )= Brake Power (2)
(3)
Brake
Calorific Value × Fuel Power
Consumption
Brake Power × 100
BTE (%) =
3.2. Heat Release Rate Analysis (3)
Calorific Value × Fuel Consumption
In this study, the heat release rate (HRR) was essentially determined from the in-cylinder pressure
data and volume measurements. Assumptions such as negligible leakage and heat transfer to the wall
3.2. Heat Release Rate Analysis
In this study, the heat release rate (HRR) was essentially determined from the in-cylinder
pressure data and volume measurements. Assumptions such as negligible leakage and heat transfer
to the wall were made for the sake of simplicity [43]. In fact, this simplification has an insignificant
effect on the HRR results. This is because the HRR results are relatively insensitive to the wall
 where is the HRR per crank angle, θ is the crank angle, P is the pressure, V is the cylinder
dθ
volume, and γ is the specific ratio.

4. Results and Discussions

Energies 2019, 12, 1954 6 of 17
4.1. Engine Performance
were made for the in
As shown sake of simplicity
Figure 2a is the[43].BSFC In of
fact,
fuelthisblends
simplification has an insignificant
under constant speed of 2000 effect
rpm onandthe at
HRR results.
various Thisloads.
engine is because
Withthe theHRR results are
substitution relatively
of biofuel insensitive
in the blend, the to the wall trend
general temperature
indicates [44].
that
According
the BSFCtoisthe first law ofhigher
consistently thermodynamics,
than that of the belowdiesel
baseline equation as derived
regardless by Heywood
of engine load. For [45] was
instance,
used
theto determine
average the HRR:
increments in BSFC compared to baseline diesel are 1.5%, 1.9%, and 3.1% for B20, B20E5,
dQ γ dV 1 dP
and B20E10, respectively. This can be=explained P with + the V relatively lower calorific value of coconut (4)
dθ γ − 1 dθ γ − 1 dθ
biodiesel and bioethanol blends when compared with the baseline diesel, as shown in Table 1 and
TabledQ2.isConsequently,
where the HRR per crank more angle,
fuel isθrequired to produce
is the crank angle, Pthe similar
is the powerV output
pressure, as for the
is the cylinder baseline
volume,
dθ
anddiesel fuelspecific
γ is the [46, 47]. Besides, it was discovered that the BSFC increased with an increase in the
ratio.
bioethanol blending ratio in the coconut biodiesel blend across all engine loads. This phenomenon
4. can
Results and Discussions
be associated with decreases in the energy content of ternary blends of bioethanol-biodiesel-
diesel fuel blend, as indicated in Table 2. As a result, with increases in the portion of bioethanol in
4.1. Engine Performance
the blends, the BSFC also increases. Another observation is that the BSFC decrease with the increase
in As
engine
shown torque for all2atest
in Figure fuels.
is the BSFCThisofsignifies
fuel blendsthatunder
the conversion of theoffuel
constant speed 2000at rpm
a higher
and load is more
at various
effective.
engine loads.AtWith higher engine loads,
the substitution ofthe highinin-cylinder
biofuel the blend, the temperature
general trendand indicates
turbulence thatflow led toisthe
the BSFC
atomization
consistently and proper
higher than that mixing of fuel diesel
of baseline which regardless
resulted inof higher
engine combustion efficiency.the average
load. For instance,
As shown
increments in BSFC in compared
Figure 2b is to the BSECdiesel
baseline for allare
the1.5%,
tested1.9%,
fuelsand
under
3.1% various
for B20, engine
B20E5, load
andconditions.
B20E10,
BSEC is a more
respectively. This practical parameter
can be explained than
with theBSFC because
relatively it is independent
lower calorific valueofof the fuel type
coconut and therefore
biodiesel and
more suitable for analysing the engine performance of fuels with different
bioethanol blends when compared with the baseline diesel, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Consequently, calorific values [48]. BSEC
measures
more the energy
fuel is required input required
to produce to develop
the similar a unit power.
power output as for theThe lower the
baseline dieselvalue
fuelof BSEC,Besides,
[46,47]. the better
the efficiency
it was discovered of energy
that theconsumption
BSFC increased is. On average,
with the results
an increase indicated
in the bioethanol thatblending
B20, B20E5 andinB20E10
ratio the
produce
coconut 1.7%, 3.1%
biodiesel blendand 3.9%,
across all lower
engineBSECloads.compared to baseline
This phenomenon candiesel fuel, respectively.
be associated with decreasesThis mayin
thebeenergy
credited to the
content of increased
ternary blends availability of fuel-bound oxygen fuel
of bioethanol-biodiesel-diesel in biodiesel
blend, asand bioethanol
indicated in Tablefuel2.as
Asshown
a result,inwith
Table 1, which
increases promoted
in the portion of better combustion
bioethanol efficiency
in the blends, the [49].
BSFCFurthermore,
also increases.the B20E10
Another
marked the
observation minimum
is that the BSFC BSEC among
decrease all the
with the increase
tested fuels acrosstorque
in engine all engine
for alltorques. This
test fuels. is signifies
This due to the
less
that theviscous
conversion propertyof theoffuel
theatbioethanol,
a higher load which strongly
is more enhanced
effective. the fuel
At higher engineatomization
loads, theprocess,
high
thereby promoting complete combustion [50]. As illustrated in Table
in-cylinder temperature and turbulence flow led to the atomization and proper mixing of fuel which 2, it is apparent that the viscosity
decreases
resulted as thecombustion
in higher percentage efficiency.
of bioethanol increases. Therefore, it aids a more complete combustion
of the fuel and therefore lowering the energy consumption.
450 20
Diesel Diesel
400 18
BSEC (MJkW-1h-1)
BSFC (gkW-1h-1)

B20 B20
16
350
14
300
12
250
10
200
8
20 40 60 80 100 120
Engine Torque (Nm) 20 40 60 80 100 120
Engine Torque (Nm)
(a) (b)
Figure 2. (a) BSFC and (b) BSEC for the tested fuels at different engine loads.

As shown in Figure 2b is the BSEC for all the tested fuels under various engine load conditions.
BSEC is a more practical parameter than BSFC because it is independent of the fuel type and therefore
more suitable for analysing the engine performance of fuels with different calorific values [48]. BSEC
measures the energy input required to develop a unit power. The lower the value of BSEC, the better
the efficiency of energy consumption is. On average, the results indicated that B20, B20E5 and B20E10
produce 1.7%, 3.1% and 3.9%, lower BSEC compared to baseline diesel fuel, respectively. This may be
Energies 2019, 12, 1954 7 of 17

credited to the increased availability of fuel-bound oxygen in biodiesel and bioethanol fuel as shown
in Table 1, which promoted better combustion efficiency [49]. Furthermore, the B20E10 marked the
minimum BSEC among all the tested fuels across all engine torques. This is due to the less viscous
property of the bioethanol, which strongly enhanced the fuel atomization process, thereby promoting
complete combustion [50]. As illustrated in Table 2, it is apparent that the viscosity decreases as the
percentage of bioethanol
Figure 2. (a)increases.
BSFC and (b) Therefore,
BSEC for it
theaids a more
tested complete
fuels at combustion
different engine loads. of the fuel and
therefore lowering the energy consumption.
As shown
As shown in in Figure
Figure 33 isis the
the BTE
BTE forfor all
all the
the tested
tested fuels
fuels under
under various
various engine
engine loadload conditions.
conditions.
Generally, the results showed that the BTE increased with the increment in engine
Generally, engine load. Also, the
load. Also,
results indicated that the BTE of
results of all
all blended
blended fuels
fuels was
was consistently
consistently improved
improved over the baseline diesel diesel
across all engine loads. For
across For instance,
instance, thethe addition
addition of of 5%
5% and
and 10%
10% ofof bioethanol
bioethanol in in the
the biodiesel-diesel
biodiesel-diesel
fuel blend
fuel blend have
have each
eachgiven
givenaariserisetotothe
theBTE
BTEby by0.4%−5.3%
0.4–5.3% and and1.9–5.9%
1.9%−5.9% respectively,
respectively, with respect
with to
respect
baseline diesel. This trend can be attributed to the relatively
to baseline diesel. This trend can be attributed to the relatively lower viscosity lower viscosity of the bioethanol as
as
explained in
explained inthe
theaforementioned
aforementioned observation
observation of BSEC
of BSEC result, thereby
result, allowing
thereby a morea complete
allowing mixing
more complete
of air and
mixing fueland
of air [51]. Similar
fuel observations
[51]. Similar were also
observations wererecorded by other
also recorded byresearchers. Imdadul
other researchers. et al. [52]
Imdadul et
and[52]
al. Anand et al. [53]
and Anand et observed that the that
al. [53] observed ternary
the fuel
ternaryblends
fuel(biodiesel, diesel, and
blends (biodiesel, alcohol)
diesel, showed
and alcohol)
improved
showed BTE overBTE
improved the over
binary blends
the binaryof blends
biodiesel-diesel and this phenomenon
of biodiesel-diesel can be associated
and this phenomenon can be
with the improvement
associated in fuel properties.
with the improvement AnotherAnother
in fuel properties. explanation is due tois the
explanation dueimprovements
to the improvements which
relatedrelated
which to the presence of rich oxygen
to the presence molecules
of rich oxygen in the fuel
molecules in blends
the fuelofblends
B20, B20E5
of B20,and B20E10
B20E5 and [54]. This
B20E10
[54]. This characteristic
characteristic will promote will promote
more completemore complete
combustion combustion in the thereby
in the engine, engine, thereby
increasing increasing
the BTE.the In
BTE. In addition,
addition, the resultsthealso
results alsothat
reveal reveal
the that the variations
variations in BTE are in BTE
very are verywith
similar similar
the with the variation
variation in BSEC,
in BSEC,
where thewhere
B20E10 thefuel
B20E10
blend fuel blend recorded
recorded the lowest theenergy
lowestconsumption,
energy consumption,
thereby it thereby
had the it greatest
had the
greatest
thermal thermal
efficiency. efficiency.

40.0
Diesel
B20
35.0 B20E5
B20E10
BTE (%)

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0
20 40 60 80 100 120
Engine Torque (Nm)
Figure
Figure 3.
3. BTE
BTEfor
for the
the tested
tested fuels
fuels at
at different
different engine loads.

4.2. Exhaust
4.2. Exhaust Emissions
Emissions
Potential human
Potential humanhealthhealtheffects andand
effects severe environmental
severe environmentalissuesissues
are someare ofsome
the greatest
of the concerns
greatest
that have arisen due to NOx emission from engines [55]. There are several
concerns that have arisen due to NOx emission from engines [55]. There are several factors factors contributing to
NOx emission, such as the cylinder combustion temperature, oxygen
contributing to NOx emission, such as the cylinder combustion temperature, oxygen content, content, residence time, fuel
characteristics
residence time,as well
fuel as the engineas
characteristics operating
well as the conditions [20]. The variation
engine operating conditions in[20].
NOxThe for all test fuels
variation in
underfor
NOx various
all testengine loads various
fuels under is depicted in Figure
engine 4. depicted
loads is In general,
in it can be
Figure 4.observed
In general, that the be
it can B20 emitted
observed
higher
that theNOx than thehigher
B20 emitted baselineNOxdiesel
thanfuel
theacross all diesel
baseline enginefuel
loadacross
conditions. As indicated
all engine in TableAs
load conditions. 1,
coconut biodiesel
indicated in Tabletakes a greater
1, coconut weightage
biodiesel takes ofaoxygen
greatercontent as compared
weightage of oxygen to content
the dieselasfuel, therefore
compared to
resulting in an increased combustion temperature, and thereby promoting the
the diesel fuel, therefore resulting in an increased combustion temperature, and thereby promoting formation of NOx [55].
Thisformation
the result is in
ofgood
NOxagreement with the
[55]. This result is infindings obtained by
good agreement Liaquat
with et al. [56].
the findings obtained by Liaquat et
al. [56].
At low engine load conditions, the addition of 5% and 10% of bioethanol in the blends indicated
a drop in NOx emission by 0.3%−3.0% and 8.1%−10.7%, respectively. This phenomenon is mostly
related to the evaporative cooling effect of the bioethanol, whereby the relatively lower calorific value
and higher latent heat of vaporization [57] contributed to the drop of combustion temperature, hence
cooling effect of the alcohol favoured the lower in-cylinder temperature, resulting in less formation
of NOx. On the other hand, Atmanli [62] and Yilmaz [46] conducted a study on the engine
characteristics for the effect of addition of alcohol in the fuel blends. They concluded that higher NOx
emission was observed for the alcohol blended fuels. This is because of the oxygen enrichment in the
alcohol2019,
Energies blended
12, 1954fuels that led to an increase in combustion chamber temperature, thus resulting in
8 of 17
more NOx emitted.

Engine Load (Nm)

20 40 60 80 100 120
30

Variation in NOx (%)

20

10

0
B20
-10 B20E5
B20E10
-20
Figure 4. Variation in NOx emissions with the blends compared
compared to
to diesel
diesel fuel
fuel as
as baseline.
baseline.

At
Thelow engineemission
exhaust load conditions, the addition
of CO comes from the of incomplete
5% and 10%oxidation
of bioethanol
of theincarbon
the blends indicated
particles in thea
drop inaNOx
fuel as resultemission by 0.3–3.0%
of inadequate amountandof8.1–10.7%,
oxygen for respectively.
the complete This phenomenon
oxidation [63]. Theis mostly
variationrelated
in COto
the evaporative
emission cooling
with the effect of the
oxygenated fuelbioethanol, wherebyto
blends compared thebaseline
relatively lower
diesel calorific
fuel is shown valueinand higher
Figure 5.
latent heat of
Generally, thevaporization
baseline diesel[57]indicated
contributed thetogreatest
the dropemission
of combustion temperature,
of CO among all thehence
testedreducing
fuel blendsthe
NOx
acrossformation
all engine [58].
loadAtconditions.
medium engine load, there
The results showedis nothat
significant difference
there were average of NOx variation
reductions in COfor
B20E5 blend.
emissions for Meanwhile,
B20, B20E5, higher NOx emissions
and B20E10 are produced
of 3.2%, 7.5%, and 9.3%, byrespectively.
B20E5 and B20E10 at high engine
The oxygenated fuel
load operations.
property This phenomenon
of the coconut biodiesel and canbioethanol-biodiesel
be associated to theblendshigher was
oxygen content
claimed in the
to be bioethanol
main reasonfuel,
which
for thistherefore
situation,enhanced
due to the themore
NOxcomplete
formation [59,60]. process that occurred [64, 65].
combustion
A similar
Also, the trend
lower in the variation
kinematic of NOx
viscosity emission
of the was reported
bioethanol favouredby theYilmaz et al.of
depletion [61].
COThey used
emission.
ternary blends
This is due of diesel-waste
to the ethanol is easecooking oil biodiesel-ethanol
of breaking down from itsand found
liquid thatespecially
form, the NOx emission
for the fueldropped
blend
with
with the
10%increase of ethanol
bioethanol and thusratio at low engine
resulting load. combustion
in enhanced They claimed that the
process asevaporative
compared tocooling effect
other tested
of the which
fuels, alcoholreleasing
favouredlesstheamount
lower in-cylinder temperature,
of CO. In fact, resulting invariation
the most significant less formation of NOx.
was noticed On the
especially
other
at thehand, Atmanli
low engine load[62]
ofand Yilmaz
20 Nm. [46] conducted
Generally, a study
the emission ofonCOthe
atengine
low enginecharacteristics for the effect
load is comparatively
of addition
high due toofcombustion
alcohol in the fuel blends.and
inefficiencies They concluded
relatively lowthat higher NOx
in-cylinder emissiontemperature.
combustion was observed for
With
the alcohol blended
bioethanol fuel in thefuels. This is
blend, thebecause
oxygen of content
the oxygen enrichment
of ethanol mayin lead
the alcohol blended
to a higher fuels that
combustion
led to an increase
efficiency, which inresults
combustion chambercombustion
in a cleaner temperature, thus resulting
process even atinrelatively
more NOx lowemitted.
temperatures,
The exhaust
therefore reducing emission of CO of
the formation comes
CO. from the incomplete oxidation of the carbon particles in the
fuel as a result of inadequate amount of oxygen for the complete oxidation [63]. The variation in
CO emission with the oxygenated fuel blends compared to baseline diesel fuel is shown in Figure 5.
Generally, the baseline diesel indicated the greatest emission of CO among all the tested fuel blends
across all engine load conditions. The results showed that there were average reductions in CO
emissions for B20, B20E5, and B20E10 of 3.2%, 7.5%, and 9.3%, respectively. The oxygenated fuel
property of the coconut biodiesel and bioethanol-biodiesel blends was claimed to be the main reason
for this situation, due to the more complete combustion process that occurred [64,65].
Energies 2019, 12, 1954 9 of 17

Engine Load (Nm)

20 40 60 80 100 120
0

Variation in CO (%) -5

-10
B20
-15 B20E5
B20E10
-20
Figure
Figure 5.
5. Variation
Variation in
in CO
CO emissions
emissions with
with the
the blends
blends compared to diesel
compared to diesel fuel
fuel as
as aa baseline.
baseline.

Smoke
Also, the is lower
generated from the
kinematic incomplete
viscosity of thecombustion process in
bioethanol favoured thethe CI engine,
depletion andemission.
of CO it is definitely
This
undesirable
is due to theexhaust
ethanol emission
is ease of[66]. Figure
breaking 6 represents
down from its the variation
liquid in smoke emission
form, especially in the
for the fuel form
blend of
with
percentage
10% bioethanoldifference
and thus as resulting
compared in with the baseline
enhanced combustiondiesel at various
process engine loads.
as compared Based
to other testedonfuels,
the
resultsreleasing
which obtained,lessall amount
fuel blendsof CO. tested showed
In fact, a significant
the most significant reduction
variationin smoke
was emission
noticed across
especially all
at the
engine loads.
low engine loadThis is Nm.
of 20 mainly due to the
Generally, the fact that bioethanol
emission of CO at low has less carbon
engine and more oxygen
load is comparatively highthan
due
baseline diesel,inefficiencies
to combustion promoting an and increase of low
relatively the oxygen/
in-cylinderfuelcombustion
ratio and, temperature.
consequently,With improving the
bioethanol
combustion process
fuel in the blend, theand
oxygen resulting
content in of
lower
ethanolCOmay emissions
lead to[67]. Also,combustion
a higher the rich fuel-borne
efficiency,oxygen
which
content
results inina biodiesel and bioethanol
cleaner combustion process blends
even promoted
at relatively the
low oxidation of carbon
temperatures, atomsreducing
therefore during the
combustion
formation of process
CO. as reported in the literature [68–70]. Besides, the result also reveals that the
variation
Smoke of ispercentage difference
generated from in smoke combustion
the incomplete is more prominent
process in and
thehigher withand
CI engine, theitincreases in
is definitely
bioethanol
undesirableconcentration
exhaust emission in the
[66].blend
Figureunder all loading
6 represents conditions.
the variation For instance,
in smoke emissionthe percentage
in the form of
reductions of smoke for
percentage difference B20, B20E5,
as compared andthe
with B20E10
baselinearediesel
11%, at42%, and 52%,
various enginerespectively
loads. Basedas on
compared to
the results
baseline
obtained,diesel
all fuelatblends
high engine load of a120
tested showed Nm. In reduction
significant general, the blending
in smoke of bioethanol
emission across all with the
engine
biodiesel-diesel mixture
loads. This is mainly duefavoured
to the factnoticeably improved
that bioethanol hassmoke emissions.
less carbon and more oxygen than baseline
diesel, promoting an increase of the oxygen/fuel ratio and, consequently, improving the combustion
process and resulting in lower CO emissions [67]. Engine Load
Also, the rich(Nm)
fuel-borne oxygen content in biodiesel
and bioethanol blends promoted 20 the oxidation
40 60carbon80
of 100 the120
atoms during combustion process as
reported in the literature 0 [68–70]. Besides, the result also reveals that the variation of percentage
difference in smoke is more prominent and higher with the increases in bioethanol concentration in the
Variation in Smoke (%)

blend under all loading -10

conditions. For instance, the percentage reductions of smoke for B20, B20E5,
and B20E10 are 11%, 42%, and 52%, respectively as compared to baseline diesel at high engine load of
120 Nm. In general, the blending of bioethanol with the biodiesel-diesel mixture favoured noticeably
-20
improved smoke emissions.
-30
B20
-40 B20E5
B20E10
-50
Figure 6. Variation in smoke emissions with the blends compared to diesel fuel as baseline.

4.3. Combustion Characteristics

Figure 7 illustrates the plot of in-cylinder combustion pressure versus crank angle for all the
tested fuels under different engine load conditions. Generally, it can be seen that the first peak
pressure for all the fuel blends are comparable to that of baseline diesel at all engine loads, except for
20 Nm. Specifically, at the top dead center (TDC), the B20E10 achieved the greatest first peak pressure
combustion process as reported in the literature [68–70]. Besides, the result also reveals that the
variation of percentage difference in smoke is more prominent and higher with the increases in
bioethanol concentration in the blend under all loading conditions. For instance, the percentage
reductions of smoke for B20, B20E5, and B20E10 are 11%, 42%, and 52%, respectively as compared to
of 53.82
baseline
Energies bar,
diesel
2019, while the lowest
at high
12, 1954 enginefirstloadpeak pressure
of 120 Nm. was recordedthe
In general, with 51.59 bar
blending of by the B20 atwith
bioethanol the
10 crank
ofthe
17
angle of –1 °ATDC (degree after top dead center).
biodiesel-diesel mixture favoured noticeably improved smoke emissions. Noticeably, the trend indicated a rise in the first
peak pressure with the addition of bioethanol in the blends, but it dropped without bioethanol as
compared to the baseline diesel. Engine Load (Nm)
At medium engine load of 60 Nm, it was observed that there was no significant variation in the
20 40 60 80 100 120
first peak pressure for all types of tested fuel. On the other hand, the second peak pressure of the
0
B20E10 blend was slightly on top of others, recording a value of 52.99 bar at 19 °ATDC. In general,

Variation in Smoke (%)

the B20E10 blend achieved greater peak in-cylinder pressure as compared to other tested fuel. This is
-10
mostly due to the less viscous property of the bioethanol, which further lowered the kinematic
viscosity of the fuel blends, hence enhancing the fuel atomization process [69, 71]. Also, bioethanol
-20
has much higher oxygen content, resulting in a shorter ignition delay. The relationship of the oxygen
content and the ignition delay was also found by other researcher [72].
-30
Besides, it can be seen that the second peaks cylinder pressure for both of the B20E5 and B20E10
fuel blends tend to shift nearer to theB20 TDC at low and medium engine loads. This phenomenon
demonstrated that the -40
combustion process B20E5started earlier, consequently leading to a more complete
combustion and greater in-cylinder pressure B20E10 [73]. A similar observation was also found at the high
engine load of 120 Nm, -50but the B20E5 blend marked a slight deterioration in the second peak pressure
as comparedFigure to that of baseline diesel fuel, from 90.26 bar to 88.36 bar, while others showed a
6. Variation
Variation in smoke emissions with the blends compared to diesel fuel as baseline.
comparable magnitude. This situation was mostly due to the dominant effect of calorific value over
4.3.
4.3. Combustion
theCombustion
oxygen content Characteristics
at the high engine load.
Characteristics
Another worthy observation
Figure that can be observed is that theversus
first peaks cylinderforpressure at the
Figure 77illustrates
illustratesthe theplot
plotof of
in-cylinder
in-cylindercombustion
combustion pressure
pressure versuscrankcrankangleangle allfor
theall
tested
the
engine
fuels load of 20 Nm and 60 Nm were lower than the second peaks cylinder pressure, except at
testedunder
fuels different engine load
under different engine conditions. Generally,
load conditions. it can beit seen
Generally, can that
be seen the first
that peak pressure
the first peak
higher
for load
all theforfuel of 120 Nm. This can be attributed to the pilot combustion phase occurred due to the pilot
pressure allblends
the fuelare comparable
blends to that oftobaseline
are comparable diesel atdiesel
that of baseline all engine
at allloads,
engineexcept
loads,for 20 Nm.
except for
fuel injection,
Specifically, at theresulting
top dead higher
center in-cylinder
(TDC), the temperature
B20E10 achieved during
the the compression
greatest first peak stroke,ofthereby
pressure 53.82
20 Nm. Specifically, at the top dead center (TDC), the B20E10 achieved the greatest first peak pressure
raising
bar, while the peak
the in-cylinder
lowest first peakpressure.
pressure Atwas
a high enginewith
recorded load 51.59
of 120barNm,bythe
themain
B20 atinjection
the crank takes over
angle
ofthe
−1dominant
◦ ATDC (degree effect, causing
after topgreater heat released
dead center). and higher
Noticeably, in-cylinder
the trend indicated pressure.
a rise inAlso, the greater
the first peak
amount of heat released at high engine load also favoured the utilization
pressure with the addition of bioethanol in the blends, but it dropped without bioethanol as compared of fuel energy, hence
producing more
to the baseline diesel. power at the main combustion phase.

Diesel B20 B20E5 B20E10

TDC
95

85
In-cylinder Pressure (bar)

75
120Nm
65

55
60Nm
45

35
20Nm
25
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Crank Angle (degree)
Figure7.7.The
Figure Thevariation
variationinincombustion
combustionpressure
pressurefor
fordiesel,
diesel,B20
B20and
andB20E5
B20E5atatananengine
engineload
loadofof2020Nm,
Nm,
6060Nm, and 120 Nm.
Nm, and 120 Nm.

AtInmedium engine
the analysis ofload
HRRofcurve,
60 Nm,forit was observed
engine load ofthat
20 there
Nm, was no significant
the B20E10 variation
fuel blend in the
marked the
first peak pressure for all types of tested fuel. On the other hand, the second peak pressure
maximum peak HRR of 22.62 J/°CA at 19 °ATDC, while the B20 blend showed the lowest peak HRR of the
B20E10 blend was slightly on top of others, recording a value of 52.99 bar at 19 ◦ ATDC. In general,
Energies 2019, 12, 1954 11 of 17

the B20E10 blend achieved greater peak in-cylinder pressure as compared to other tested fuel. This
is mostly due to the less viscous property of the bioethanol, which further lowered the kinematic
of 13.96ofJ/°CA
viscosity the fuelat 23 °ATDC,
blends, hence as enhancing
shown in the Figure
fuel8.atomization
In fact, theprocess
general[69,71].
trend Also,
indicates that the
bioethanol
variations
has much higherin peak HRRcontent,
oxygen are veryresulting
similar with the variation
in a shorter ignition indelay.
the second peak in-cylinder
The relationship of the pressure.
oxygen
Also, the
content andexcess oxygendelay
the ignition atoms wascontained
also found in the hydroxyl
by other group of
researcher the ethanol promoted an efficient
[72].
combustion,
Besides, itresulting
can be seen in more
that theheat beingpeaks
second released. In addition,
cylinder pressurethe fordecrease
both of thein the
B20E5peakandHRR of the
B20E10
B20blends
fuel blend was
tendmostly
to shiftattributed
nearer to to thetheTDC lower at calorific
low and value,
medium andengine
thus leads
loads. to the
Thislower amount of
phenomenon
heat releasedthat
demonstrated duringthe combustion
combustion [47]. process started earlier, consequently leading to a more complete
Furthermore,
combustion and greaterthe minimal
in-cylinder risepressure
in the HRR [73]. A before
similartheobservation
TDC recorded was byalsoboth
found theatB20E5
the high and
B20E10
engine loadblends
of 120wasNm,mostly
but thedueB20E5 to blend
their physicochemical property, especially
marked a slight deterioration in the secondtheirpeak
relatively
pressure lower
as
flash points. Based on Table 1, it can be seen that the flash point
compared to that of baseline diesel fuel, from 90.26 bar to 88.36 bar, while others showed a comparableof bioethanol is much smaller
compared This
magnitude. to baseline
situation diesel
was andmostly coconut
due tobiodiesel.
the dominant Therefore,
effect ofthecalorific
fuel reached the auto-ignition
value over the oxygen
temperature
content before
at the high the TDC
engine load.due to the compression of the fuel. To this end, the combustion of the
pilot injection
Another fuel started
worthy earlierthat
observation andcan marked an insignificant
be observed is that the rise before
first peaks the TDC. With
cylinder engine
pressure load
at the
increased
engine load toof 60 Nm,and
20 Nm the 60highest
Nm were peaklowerHRRthan recorded was 33.20
the second peaksJ/°CA
cylinderby pressure,
the B20 blendexcept atatthe crank
higher
angle of 18 °ATDC. On the other hand, the B20E5 blend achieved
load of 120 Nm. This can be attributed to the pilot combustion phase occurred due to the pilot fuel the minimum peak HRR of 27.63
J/°CA atresulting
injection, the crankhigher
angle in-cylinder
of 16 °ATDC. The lowerduring
temperature calorific
thevalue of the bioethanol
compression contributed
stroke, thereby raisinglower
the
totalin-cylinder
peak heat released, thereby
pressure. At areducing
high engine theloadpeakofHRR.
120 Nm, At the
a higher engine load
main injection takesofover
120 the
Nm, the HRR
dominant
curvecausing
effect, for all tested
greaterfuels
heatare comparable,
released and higher where the peakspressure.
in-cylinder HRR recorded Also, thewere occurred
greater amount at the crank
of heat
angle ofat15
released °ATDC
high engineforload
B20E5 and
also 13 °ATDC
favoured the for other blends
utilization of fueland dieselhence
energy, fuel. This situation
producing more is credited
power
to the balance achieved
at the main combustion phase. by the physicochemical properties of the fuel at the high engine load,
resulting in a similar rate of the fuel burned and consequently comparable
In the analysis of HRR curve, for engine load of 20 Nm, the B20E10 fuel blend marked the HRR curves.
maximum The peak
resultsHRR forofthe peak
22.62 J/◦ CA at 19 ◦ ATDC,
in-cylinder pressure
while and
thepeak HRR showed
B20 blend are in good agreement
the lowest peak HRR with of the
◦
published ◦
researches by other authors. In a research conducted by Yang
13.96 J/ CA at 23 ATDC, as shown in Figure 8. In fact, the general trend indicates that the variations et al. [49] on the application
inofpeak
pentanol-biodiesel
HRR are very similar blends with
in diesel engine, they
the variation confirmed
in the second peakthat the alcohol influenced
in-cylinder pressure. Also,in thethe rise
of theoxygen
excess maximum atoms in-cylinder
containedpressure and thegroup
in the hydroxyl peak HRR,
of thedue to earlier
ethanol promotedtiming anof start ofcombustion,
efficient combustion.
Also, Qiinetmore
resulting al. [74]
heatevaluated the combustion
being released. In addition, behaviour
the decreaseby using
in the ethanol-tung
peak HRR of the oil-diesel
B20 blend blends
wasas
their fuels.
mostly Basedtoon
attributed thethelowerresults obtained,
calorific value,the andpeak
thuscombustion
leads to the pressure
lower amount and the peakreleased
of heat HRR for
bioethanol blended
during combustion [47]. fuels were above those obtained for the baseline diesel.

Diesel B20 B20E5 B20E10

TDC
40
36
HEat Release Rate (J/°CA)

32
120Nm
28
24
20
16 60Nm
12
8
4
20Nm
0
-4
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Crank Angle (degree)
Figure 8. 8.The
Figure Thevariation
variationininheat
heatrelease
releaserate
ratefor
fordiesel,
diesel,B20
B20and
andB20E5
B20E5atatananengine
engineload
loadofof2020Nm,
Nm,6060
Nm, and 120 Nm.
Nm, and 120 Nm.

Another worthy observation from the combustion analysis is the mass fraction burned of the
fuels. Figure 9 indicates the mass fraction burned of the tested fuel at various crank angles, whereby
the dotted lines are the different mass fraction burned, such as 10% (CA10), 50% (CA50) and 90%
Energies 2019, 12, 1954 12 of 17

Furthermore, the minimal rise in the HRR before the TDC recorded by both the B20E5 and B20E10
blends was mostly due to their physicochemical property, especially their relatively lower flash points.
Based on Table 1, it can be seen that the flash point of bioethanol is much smaller compared to baseline
diesel and coconut biodiesel. Therefore, the fuel reached the auto-ignition temperature before the
TDC due to the compression of the fuel. To this end, the combustion of the pilot injection fuel started
earlier and marked an insignificant rise before the TDC. With engine load increased to 60 Nm, the
highest peak HRR recorded was 33.20 J/◦ CA by the B20 blend at the crank angle of 18 ◦ ATDC. On the
other hand, the B20E5 blend achieved the minimum peak HRR of 27.63 J/◦ CA at the crank angle of
16 ◦ ATDC. The lower calorific value of the bioethanol contributed lower total heat released, thereby
reducing the peak HRR. At a higher engine load of 120 Nm, the HRR curve for all tested fuels are
(CA90). Based on the figure, it was found that all the tested fuels have similar mass fraction burned
comparable, where the peaks HRR recorded were occurred at the crank angle of 15 ◦ ATDC for B20E5
at all engine loads, except for 20 Nm. For instance, the B20E10 blend achieved the steeper curve of
and 13 ◦ ATDC for other blends and diesel fuel. This situation is credited to the balance achieved by
the mass fraction burned with the shorter combustion duration.
the physicochemical properties of the fuel at the high engine load, resulting in a similar rate of the fuel
Furthermore, it can be seen that the B20E10 reached the 90% mass fraction burned earlier than
burned and consequently comparable HRR curves.
other fuels. This observation is in agreement with another author, Alptekin [71] who claimed that the
The results for the peak in-cylinder pressure and peak HRR are in good agreement with the
alcohol-based fuels tend to shift the CA10 and CA90 values earlier. This is ascribed to the shorter
published researches by other authors. In a research conducted by Yang et al. [49] on the application of
ignition delay as discussed earlier, enabling the combustion to start slightly earlier than other tested
pentanol-biodiesel blends in diesel engine, they confirmed that the alcohol influenced in the rise of the
fuels. Although the start of combustion timing was occurred at about the same crank angle of
maximum in-cylinder pressure and the peak HRR, due to earlier timing of start of combustion. Also,
9°ATDC, there was still some variation in the earlier occurrence of combustion for both of the B20E5
Qi et al. [74] evaluated the combustion behaviour by using ethanol-tung oil-diesel blends as their fuels.
and B20E10 fuels. This could be explained by the lower kinematic viscosity and density of the
Based on the results obtained, the peak combustion pressure and the peak HRR for bioethanol blended
bioethanol and, consequently caused the blended fuel vaporized faster and mixed well with the
fuels were above those obtained for the baseline diesel.
intake air [71]. Besides, it can be observed that the B20E10 showed shorter combustion duration,
Another worthy observation from the combustion analysis is the mass fraction burned of the fuels.
which reduced by an average of 1.375 °CA compared to the corresponding baseline diesel. As a result,
Figure 9 indicates the mass fraction burned of the tested fuel at various crank angles, whereby the
energy was released at a faster rate, which reduced the heat loss from the engine as there is
dotted lines are the different mass fraction burned, such as 10% (CA10), 50% (CA50) and 90% (CA90).
insufficient time for this heat to leave the cylinder via heat transfer to the coolant. Moreover, the slight
Based on the figure, it was found that all the tested fuels have similar mass fraction burned at all engine
gain in the BTE with increased bioethanol substitution as aforementioned can be attributed to the
loads, except for 20 Nm. For instance, the B20E10 blend achieved the steeper curve of the mass fraction
same reason that is responsible for the slightly faster rate of combustion.
burned with the shorter combustion duration.

Diesel B20 B20E5 B20E10

TDC
1.1
1
0.9
Mass Fraction Burned

60Nm 90%
0.8
20Nm
0.7
120Nm
0.6
0.5 50%
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 10%
0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Crank Angle (degree)
Figure9.9. Variation
Figure Variationin
inmass
massfraction
fractionburned
burnedfor
forall
alltested
testedfuels
fuelsatatan
anengine
engineload
loadof
of20
20Nm,
Nm,60
60Nm,
Nm,and
and
120
120Nm.
Nm.

5. Conclusions
In this study, the effect of bioethanol as a fuel additive in coconut biodiesel blends was studied
in a four-cylinder, direct-injection and common-rail diesel engine. The addition of bioethanol into the
20% coconut biodiesel blends was found feasible and it minimized the issues originating from the
biodiesel. Notably, 5% and 10% bioethanol on a volume basis were separately added into the B20
blend to compare their respective performance. The following main conclusion can be drawn from
Energies 2019, 12, 1954 13 of 17

Furthermore, it can be seen that the B20E10 reached the 90% mass fraction burned earlier than
other fuels. This observation is in agreement with another author, Alptekin [71] who claimed that the
alcohol-based fuels tend to shift the CA10 and CA90 values earlier. This is ascribed to the shorter
ignition delay as discussed earlier, enabling the combustion to start slightly earlier than other tested
fuels. Although the start of combustion timing was occurred at about the same crank angle of 9◦ ATDC,
there was still some variation in the earlier occurrence of combustion for both of the B20E5 and B20E10
fuels. This could be explained by the lower kinematic viscosity and density of the bioethanol and,
consequently caused the blended fuel vaporized faster and mixed well with the intake air [71]. Besides,
it can be observed that the B20E10 showed shorter combustion duration, which reduced by an average
of 1.375 ◦ CA compared to the corresponding baseline diesel. As a result, energy was released at a
faster rate, which reduced the heat loss from the engine as there is insufficient time for this heat to
leave the cylinder via heat transfer to the coolant. Moreover, the slight gain in the BTE with increased
bioethanol substitution as aforementioned can be attributed to the same reason that is responsible for
the slightly faster rate of combustion.

5. Conclusions
In this study, the effect of bioethanol as a fuel additive in coconut biodiesel blends was studied in
a four-cylinder, direct-injection and common-rail diesel engine. The addition of bioethanol into the
20% coconut biodiesel blends was found feasible and it minimized the issues originating from the
biodiesel. Notably, 5% and 10% bioethanol on a volume basis were separately added into the B20
blend to compare their respective performance. The following main conclusion can be drawn from this
investigation:

1. An improvement in the BSEC and BTE of the blends at the expense of brake specific fuel
consumption (BSFC) can be observed for each bioethanol blend.
2. A higher percentage of bioethanol blends causes an increment in NOx across the entire load
range, except at low load condition.
3. Simultaneous smoke and CO emission reduction from the baseline levels of petroleum diesel
fuel can be attained by utilizing all types of fuel blends. Besides, the results showed that B20E10
achieved the highest average reduction of 9.3% and 52% in smoke and CO emissions, respectively,
as compared to the baseline diesel.
4. An increment in both of the peak in-cylinder pressure and HRR can be observed with the
utilization of bioethanol blended fuels at the low engine load, especially for the B20E10 blend.
Besides, the combustion process is comparable at the medium and high load for all the tested
fuels. In addition, the B20E10 showed shorter combustion duration, which reduced by an average
of 1.375 ◦ CA compared to the corresponding baseline diesel.

Overall, the experimental results proved that the B20E10 blend exhibited great improvements in
the diesel engine, thus, bioethanol is a feasible fuel additive for the coconut biodiesel-diesel blends.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.H.T. and H.G.H.; Methodology, Y.H.T., H.G.H. and K.H.Y.;
Experimentation, Y.H.T. and H.G.H.; Data analysis, K.H.Y., and H.G.H.; Resources, H.G.H., H.T.N.;
Writing—original draft preparation, Y.H.T.; Writing—review and editing, Y.H.T., H.G.H. and H.T.N.
Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia and Universiti Sains Malaysia
under the short-term research grant scheme (304/PMEKANIK/6315074), BRIDGING research grant scheme
(304/PMEKANIK/6316488) and KDU Penang University College internal research grant scheme.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the assistant engineer of USM engine laboratory, Mohd
Zalmi Yop for providing technical support throughout the experimental work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Energies 2019, 12, 1954 14 of 17

References
1. Alptekin, E. Emission, injection and combustion characteristics of biodiesel and oxygenated fuel blends in a
common rail diesel engine. Energy 2017, 119, 44–52. [CrossRef]
2. Owen, N.A.; Inderwildi, O.R.; King, D.A. The status of conventional world oil reserves—Hype or cause for
concern? Energy Policy 2010, 38, 4743–4749. [CrossRef]
3. Augustine, A.; Marimuthu, L.; Muthusamy, S. Performance and Evaluation of DI Diesel Engine by using
Preheated Cottonseed Oil Methyl Ester. Procedia Eng. 2012, 38, 779–790. [CrossRef]
4. Giakoumis, E.G. A statistical investigation of biodiesel physical and chemical properties, and their correlation
with the degree of unsaturation. Renew. Energy 2013, 50, 858–878. [CrossRef]
5. Kumar, M.; Sharma, M.P. Assessment of potential of oils for biodiesel production. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2015, 44, 814–823. [CrossRef]
6. Wood, B.M.; Kirwan, K.; Maggs, S.; Meredith, J.; Coles, S.R. Study of combustion performance of biodiesel
for potential application in motorsport. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 93, 167–173. [CrossRef]
7. Verma, P.; Sharma, M.P.; Dwivedi, G. Potential use of eucalyptus biodiesel in compressed ignition engine.
Egypt. J. Pet. 2016, 25, 91–95. [CrossRef]
8. Demirbas, A. Biodiesel from waste cooking oil via base-catalytic and supercritical methanol transesterification.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2009, 50, 923–927. [CrossRef]
9. Nantha Gopal, K.; Thundil Karupparaj, R. Effect of pongamia biodiesel on emission and combustion
characteristics of DI compression ignition engine. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2015, 6, 297–305. [CrossRef]
10. Dhar, A.; Agarwal, A.K. Performance, emissions and combustion characteristics of Karanja biodiesel in a
transportation engine. Fuel 2014, 119, 70–80. [CrossRef]
11. Balamurugan, T.; Arun, A.; Sathishkumar, G.B. Biodiesel derived from corn oil—A fuel substitute for diesel.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 772–778. [CrossRef]
12. Liaquat, A.M.; Masjuki, H.H.; Kalam, M.A.; Rizwanul Fattah, I.M. Impact of biodiesel blend on injector
deposit formation. Energy 2014, 72, 813–823. [CrossRef]
13. Imdadul, H.K.; Rashed, M.M.; Shahin, M.M.; Masjuki, H.H.; Kalam, M.A.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Rashedul, H.K.
Quality improvement of biodiesel blends using different promising fuel additives to reduce fuel consumption
and NO emission from CI engine. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 138, 327–337. [CrossRef]
14. Mat Yasin, M.H.; Mamat, R.; Yusop, A.F.; Rahim, R.; Aziz, A.; Shah, L.A. Fuel Physical Characteristics of
Biodiesel Blend Fuels with Alcohol as Additives. Procedia Eng. 2013, 53, 701–706. [CrossRef]
15. Mat Yasin, M.H.; Yusaf, T.; Mamat, R.; Fitri Yusop, A. Characterization of a diesel engine operating with
a small proportion of methanol as a fuel additive in biodiesel blend. Appl. Energy 2014, 114, 865–873.
[CrossRef]
16. Labeckas, G.; Slavinskas, S.; Mažeika, M. The effect of ethanol–diesel–biodiesel blends on combustion,
performance and emissions of a direct injection diesel engine. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 79, 698–720.
[CrossRef]
17. Atmanlı, A.; İleri, E.; Yüksel, B. Experimental investigation of engine performance and exhaust emissions of
a diesel engine fueled with diesel–n-butanol–vegetable oil blends. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 81, 312–321.
[CrossRef]
18. Jamrozik, A.; Tutak, W.; Gnatowska, R.; Nowak, Ł. Comparative Analysis of the Combustion Stability of
Diesel-Methanol and Diesel-Ethanol in a Dual Fuel Engine. Energies 2019, 12, 971. [CrossRef]
19. Niculescu, R.; Clenci, A.; Iorga-Siman, V. Review on the Use of Diesel–Biodiesel–Alcohol Blends in
Compression Ignition Engines. Energies 2019, 12, 1194. [CrossRef]
20. Sayin, C. Engine performance and exhaust gas emissions of methanol and ethanol–diesel blends. Fuel 2010,
89, 3410–3415. [CrossRef]
21. Tian, W.; Chu, Y.; Han, Z.; Wang, X.; Yu, W.; Wu, X. Experimental Study of the Effect of Intake Oxygen
Concentration on Engine Combustion Process and Hydrocarbon Emissions with N-Butanol-Diesel Blended
Fuel. Energies 2019, 12, 1310. [CrossRef]
22. Manzetti, S.; Andersen, O. A review of emission products from bioethanol and its blends with gasoline.
Background for new guidelines for emission control. Fuel 2015, 140, 293–301. [CrossRef]
23. Lennartsson, P.R.; Erlandsson, P.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Integration of the first and second generation bioethanol
processes and the importance of by-products. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 165, 3–8. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 1954 15 of 17

24. Ziolkowska, J.R. Prospective technologies, feedstocks and market innovations for ethanol and biodiesel
production in the US. Biotechnol. Rep. 2014, 4, 94–98. [CrossRef]
25. Aditiya, H.B.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Chong, W.T.; Nur, H.; Sebayang, A.H. Second generation bioethanol production:
A critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 66, 631–653. [CrossRef]
26. Gronchi, N.; Favaro, L.; Cagnin, L.; Brojanigo, S.; Pizzocchero, V.; Basaglia, M.; Casella, S. Novel Yeast Strains
for the Efficient Saccharification and Fermentation of Starchy By-Products to Bioethanol. Energies 2019, 12,
714. [CrossRef]
27. Rakopoulos, D.C.; Rakopoulos, C.D.; Papagiannakis, R.G.; Kyritsis, D.C. Combustion heat release analysis of
ethanol or n-butanol diesel fuel blends in heavy-duty DI diesel engine. Fuel 2011, 90, 1855–1867. [CrossRef]
28. Guido, C.; Beatrice, C.; Napolitano, P. Application of bioethanol/RME/diesel blend in a Euro5 automotive
diesel engine: Potentiality of closed loop combustion control technology. Appl. Energy 2013, 102, 13–23.
[CrossRef]
29. Lapuerta, M.; Armas, O.; Herreros, J.M. Emissions from a diesel–bioethanol blend in an automotive diesel
engine. Fuel 2008, 87, 25–31. [CrossRef]
30. Chen, H.; Shi-Jin, S.; Jian-Xin, W. Study on combustion characteristics and PM emission of diesel engines
using ester–ethanol–diesel blended fuels. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2007, 31, 2981–2989. [CrossRef]
31. Corro, G.; Ayala, E. Bioethanol and diesel/bioethanol blends emissions abatement. Fuel 2008, 87, 3537–3542.
[CrossRef]
32. Yilmaz, N.; Atmanli, A.; Vigil, F.M. Quaternary blends of diesel, biodiesel, higher alcohols and vegetable oil
in a compression ignition engine. Fuel 2018, 212, 462–469. [CrossRef]
33. Yilmaz, N. Comparative analysis of biodiesel–ethanol–diesel and biodiesel–methanol–diesel blends in a
diesel engine. Energy 2012, 40, 210–213. [CrossRef]
34. Yasin, M.H.M.; Mamat, R.; Yusop, A.F.; Aziz, A.; Najafi, G. Comparative Study on Biodiesel-methanol-diesel
Low Proportion Blends Operating with a Diesel Engine. Energy Procedia 2015, 75, 10–16. [CrossRef]
35. Tan, Y.H.; Abdullah, M.O.; Nolasco-Hipolito, C.; Zauzi, N.S.A.; Abdullah, G.W. Engine performance and
emissions characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with diesel-biodiesel-bioethanol emulsions. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2017, 132, 54–64. [CrossRef]
36. Zhang, Z.-H.; Balasubramanian, R. Influence of butanol–diesel blends on particulate emissions of a non-road
diesel engine. Fuel 2014, 118, 130–136. [CrossRef]
37. Karabektas, M.; Hosoz, M. Performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine using isobutanol–diesel
fuel blends. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 1554–1559. [CrossRef]
38. Senthil, R.; Silambarasan, R. Annona: A new biodiesel for diesel engine: A comparative experimental
investigation. J. Energy Inst. 2015, 88, 459–469. [CrossRef]
39. Gad, M.S.; El-Araby, R.; Abed, K.A.; El-Ibiari, N.N.; El Morsi, A.K.; El-Diwani, G.I. Performance and emissions
characteristics of C.I. engine fueled with palm oil/palm oil methyl ester blended with diesel fuel. Egypt. J.
Pet. 2018, 27, 215–219. [CrossRef]
40. Masum, B.M.; Masjuki, H.H.; Kalam, M.A.; Rizwanul Fattah, I.M.; Palash, S.M.; Abedin, M.J. Effect of
ethanol–gasoline blend on NOx emission in SI engine. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 24, 209–222.
[CrossRef]
41. How, H.G.; Masjuki, H.H.; Kalam, M.A.; Teoh, Y.H. An investigation of the engine performance, emissions
and combustion characteristics of coconut biodiesel in a high-pressure common-rail diesel engine. Energy
2014, 69, 749–759. [CrossRef]
42. Teoh, Y.H.; Masjuki, H.H.; Kalam, M.A.; How, H.G. Effect of injection timing and EGR on engine-out-responses
of a common-rail diesel engine fueled with neat biodiesel. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 96080–96096. [CrossRef]
43. Senthil, R.; Sivakumar, E.; Silambarasan, R. Effect of di ethyl ether on the performance and emission
characteristics of a diesel engine using biodiesel–eucalyptus oil blends. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 54019–54027.
[CrossRef]
44. Goering, C. Engine heat release via spread sheet. Trans. ASAE 1998, 41, 1249. [CrossRef]
45. Heywood, J.B. Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
46. Yilmaz, N.; Atmanli, A. Experimental assessment of a diesel engine fueled with diesel-biodiesel-1-pentanol
blends. Fuel 2017, 191, 190–197. [CrossRef]
47. Can, Ö.; Öztürk, E.; Yücesu, H.S. Combustion and exhaust emissions of canola biodiesel blends in a single
cylinder DI diesel engine. Renew. Energy 2017, 109, 73–82. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 1954 16 of 17

48. Srithar, K.; Arun Balasubramanian, K.; Pavendan, V.; Ashok Kumar, B. Experimental investigations on
mixing of two biodiesels blended with diesel as alternative fuel for diesel engines. J. King Saud Univ. Eng.
Sci. 2017, 29, 50–56. [CrossRef]
49. Yang, K.; Wei, L.; Cheung, C.S.; Tang, C.; Huang, Z. The effect of pentanol addition on the particulate
emission characteristics of a biodiesel operated diesel engine. Fuel 2017, 209, 132–140. [CrossRef]
50. Imtenan, S.; Masjuki, H.H.; Varman, M.; Kalam, M.A.; Arbab, M.I.; Sajjad, H.; Ashrafur Rahman, S.M. 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. Manag. 2014, 83, 149–158. [CrossRef]
51. Prbakaran, B.; Viswanathan, D. Experimental investigation of effects of addition of ethanol to bio-diesel
on performance, combustion and emission characteristics in CI engine. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 383–389.
[CrossRef]
52. Imdadul, H.K.; Masjuki, H.H.; Kalam, M.A.; Zulkifli, N.W.M.; Alabdulkarem, A.; Rashed, M.M.; Teoh, Y.H.;
How, H.G. Higher alcohol–biodiesel–diesel blends: An approach for improving the performance, emission,
and combustion of a light-duty diesel engine. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 111, 174–185. [CrossRef]
53. Babu, D.; Anand, R. Effect of biodiesel-diesel-n-pentanol and biodiesel-diesel- n -hexanol blends on diesel
engine emission and combustion characteristics. Energy 2017, 133, 761–776. [CrossRef]
54. Dhanasekaran, R.; Krishnamoorthy, V.; Rana, D.; Saravanan, S.; Nagendran, A.; Rajesh Kumar, B. A
sustainable and eco-friendly fueling approach for direct-injection diesel engines using restaurant yellow
grease and n-pentanol in blends with diesel fuel. Fuel 2017, 193, 419–431. [CrossRef]
55. Wei, L.; Cheung, C.S.; Huang, Z. Effect of n-pentanol addition on the combustion, performance and emission
characteristics of a direct-injection diesel engine. Energy 2014, 70, 172–180. [CrossRef]
56. Liaquat, A.M.; Masjuki, H.H.; Kalam, M.A.; Fattah, I.M.R.; Hazrat, M.A.; Varman, M.; Mofijur, M.;
Shahabuddin, M. Effect of Coconut Biodiesel Blended Fuels on Engine Performance and Emission
Characteristics. Procedia Eng. 2013, 56, 583–590. [CrossRef]
57. Chen, K.-H.; Chao, Y.-C. Characterization of Performance of Short Stroke Engines with Valve Timing for
Blended Bioethanol Internal Combustion. Energies 2019, 12, 759. [CrossRef]
58. Fang, Q.; Fang, J.; Zhuang, J.; Huang, Z. Effects of ethanol–diesel–biodiesel blends on combustion and
emissions in premixed low temperature combustion. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 54, 541–548. [CrossRef]
59. Yilmaz, N.; Atmanli, A. Experimental evaluation of a diesel engine running on the blends of diesel and
pentanol as a next generation higher alcohol. Fuel 2017, 210, 75–82. [CrossRef]
60. Yilmaz, N.; Atmanli, A.; Trujillo, M. Influence of 1-pentanol additive on the performance of a diesel engine
fueled with waste oil methyl ester and diesel fuel. Fuel 2017, 207, 461–469. [CrossRef]
61. Yilmaz, N.; Vigil, F.M.; Burl Donaldson, A.; Darabseh, T. Investigation of CI engine emissions in
biodiesel–ethanol–diesel blends as a function of ethanol concentration. Fuel 2014, 115, 790–793. [CrossRef]
62. Atmanli, A. Effects of a cetane improver on fuel properties and engine characteristics of a diesel engine
fueled with the blends of diesel, hazelnut oil and higher carbon alcohol. Fuel 2016, 172, 209–217. [CrossRef]
63. Baskar, P.; Senthilkumar, A. Effects of oxygen enriched combustion on pollution and performance
characteristics of a diesel engine. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2016, 19, 438–443. [CrossRef]
64. Teoh, Y.H.; Masjuki, H.H.; Kalam, M.A.; Amalina, M.A.; How, H.G. Impact of waste cooking oil biodiesel on
performance, exhaust emission and combustion characteristics in a light-duty diesel engine. SAE Tech. Pap.
2013. [CrossRef]
65. How, H.G.; Teoh, Y.H.; Masjuki, H.H.; Kalam, M.A. Impact of coconut oil blends on particulate-phase PAHs
and regulated emissions from a light duty diesel engine. Energy 2012, 48, 500–509. [CrossRef]
66. Dhinesh, B.; Annamalai, M. A study on performance, combustion and emission behaviour of diesel engine
powered by novel nano nerium oleander biofuel. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 74–83. [CrossRef]
67. Rajesh Kumar, B.; Saravanan, S. Effects of iso-butanol/diesel and n-pentanol/diesel blends on performance
and emissions of a DI diesel engine under premixed LTC (low temperature combustion) mode. Fuel 2016, 170,
49–59. [CrossRef]
68. Emiroğlu, A.O.; Şen, M. Combustion, performance and exhaust emission characterizations of a diesel
engine operating with a ternary blend (alcohol-biodiesel-diesel fuel). Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 133, 371–380.
[CrossRef]
69. Özener, O.; Yüksek, L.; Ergenç, A.T.; Özkan, M. Effects of soybean biodiesel on a DI diesel engine performance,
emission and combustion characteristics. Fuel 2014, 115, 875–883. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 1954 17 of 17

70. Zheng, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhong, X.; Hu, B.; Liu, H.; Yao, M. Experimental study on the combustion and emissions
fueling biodiesel/n-butanol, biodiesel/ethanol and biodiesel/2,5-dimethylfuran on a diesel engine. Energy
2016, 115, 539–549. [CrossRef]
71. Alptekin, E. Evaluation of ethanol and isopropanol as additives with diesel fuel in a CRDI diesel engine.
Fuel 2017, 205, 161–172. [CrossRef]
72. Song, H.; Quinton, K.; Peng, Z.; Zhao, H.; Ladommatos, N. Effects of Oxygen Content of Fuels on Combustion
and Emissions of Diesel Engines. Energies 2016, 9, 28. [CrossRef]
73. Gharehghani, A.; Mirsalim, M.; Hosseini, R. Effects of waste fish oil biodiesel on diesel engine combustion
characteristics and emission. Renew. Energy 2017, 101, 930–936. [CrossRef]
74. Qi, D.H.; Yang, K.; Zhang, D.; Chen, B. Combustion and emission characteristics of diesel-tung oil-ethanol
blended fuels used in a CRDI diesel engine with different injection strategies. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 111,
927–935. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).