Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2019, Vol. 11(5) 1–11
Ó The Author(s) 2019
Performance and mapping of direct DOI: 10.1177/1687814019851679
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
injection diesel engine using waste
cooking oil biodiesel fuel

Jehad Yamin and Ahmad Jehad Abu Mushref

Abstract
Engine performance and mapping were done using diesel and used cooking oil biodiesel fuels. This was done using the
Tempest, 1500 cc compression ignition engine testbed. This engine is connected to a dynamometer testbed and its con-
trol panel to measure the needed performance parameters. The crankshaft speed varied between 35 and 60 rps, while
the load tested from no load to full load. The engine speed according to the manufacturer should not exceed 60 rps.
The coolant temperature remained almost constant at around 70oC. The experimental results were then utilized to
adjust the engine simulation model using the Diesel-RK software. Results showed that improvement in engine operation
with diesel is slightly compared with that of biodiesel fuel. It was also found that the combustion process with biodiesel
starts earlier during the mixing phase than diesel fuel. The primary results showed that using potassium hydroxide as a
catalyst, the biodiesel yielded 45% more compared with sodium hydroxide, 5% higher calorific value, and 10% lower visc-
osity. From mapping point of view, the results showed that biofuel has a lower thermal efficiency than the regular diesel.
A diesel-powered engine has the lowest fuel consumption of around 250–300 g/kWh at the relatively higher power and
mean effective pressure values. While for the biodiesel fuels this is around 350 g/kWh at relatively lower engine speeds,
power, and mean effective cylinder pressure. From heat release rate point of view, biodiesel burns earlier than diesel fuel
due to higher cetane number and reduced delay periods, on cylinder pressure and temperatures, for the ignition timing
and engine-operating parameters, diesel shows better performance than biodiesel for high and half loads.

Keywords
Biodiesel fuel, diesel engine, engine mapping, engine performance

Date received: 20 September 2018; accepted: 18 April 2019

Handling Editor: James Baldwin

Introduction the emitted particles and—to a lesser amount—in the

Several factors, such as the huge rise in energy price,
the massive influx of refugees from unstable neighbor-
ing countries, and the unbearable cost of petroleum-
based fuels, made it mandatory for Jordan to go for
alternative sources of energy. Jordan’s power sector
relies heavily on diesel and gas turbine power plants.
This means heavy diesel fuel consumption. Products of
combustion of such fuels contain chemicals, such as
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that are dan-
gerous and harmful to human health, on the surface of
gaseous phase depending on engine type and load.1
Efforts to reduce these emissions and their harmful
contents are categorized into three central schemes as
follows: design a new engine (e.g. electrical, hybrid,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, The
University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
Corresponding author:
Jehad Yamin, Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of
Engineering, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan.
Email: yamin@ju.edu.jo

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
solar, etc.) or modify an existing one, pre-combustion
treatment of fuel and inlet manifold (e.g. alternative
fuel, fuel additive, inlet manifold dynamic waves, etc.)
as well as the fuel injection system (e.g. common rail,
multipoint injection, etc.), and post-combustion treat-
ment of the exhaust products (e.g. catalytic converter,
air injection, exhaust additives, etc.). It is known that
engine design parameters (e.g. injection timing, valve
timing, air/fuel ratio, compression ratio, etc) are depen-
dent on the fuel used.
Biodiesel is mainly non-aromatic2 and free from sul-
fur. Conventional diesel in Jordan contains 1.2% sulfur
and 20–40 wt% aromatic compounds. Hence, diesel
engines are dominant in sulfur dioxide and black smoke
particulate emissions. In Jordan, the primary supply of
petroleum products comes from neighboring countries
such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq.
With the increase in oil price, there is an urgent need
for alternative or cofuel to replace entirely or partially
petroleum-based fuel. Upon considering the University
of Jordan (UoJ) on a small scale, the oil used in the res-
taurants is being thrown away in the sewer system, thus
wasting a potential source for green energy. This source
of energy can be utilized to fuel various combustion sys-
tems including internal combustion engines (ICEs).
The primary objectives of this research are as fol-
lows: to compare the change in biodiesel properties
using potassium hydroxide (KOH) and sodium hydro-
xide (NaOH) as catalysts and to draw the engine per-
formance map for the engine using both petrodiesel
and biodiesel fuels and compare them.
Upon reviewing the literature, one finds a consider-
able amount of work related to engine performance
using biodiesel fuel as mono or dual fuel. Sahoo and
Das3 found that biofuel made from neat Polanga seeds
resulted in maximum peak cylinder pressure. The igni-
tion delays were consistently shorter for neat Jatropha
biodiesel, varying between 5.9° and 4.2°. This differ-
ence was reported to increase with the load.
Similarly, ignition delays were shorter for neat
Karanja and Polanga biodiesel when compared with
diesel. Yamin et al.4 reported a 13.43% loss in biodiesel
fuel’s calorific value compared with diesel fuel, with
4.75% higher density. As for the performance, they
found that biodiesel was reported to perform better in
regard to torque, power and thermal efficiency, and
specific fuel consumption (SFC). This behavior was
obtained at both full and low loads.
Utlu and Koc xak5 showed that there is no change in
the engine torque, power, and SFC between waste fry-
ing oil biodiesel (WFOBD) and No. 2 diesel. However,
the carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide, nitrogen
oxides (NOx), and smoke were reportedly reduced.
Lapuerta et al.6 reviewed and analyzed the literature
related to the use of biodiesel fuel in ICEs. They found
that the majority of research results agreed on that the
amount of increase in SFC is proportional to the
decrease in heating value of biodiesel. On the contrary,
thermal efficiency did not increase significantly.
Regarding the effect on emissions, they reported that
there is a sharp decrease in both smoke and particulate
matter (PM) levels as the concentration of biodiesel in
the fuel blend was increased.
Devan and Mahalakshmi7 reported a slight increase
in hydrocarbon (HC) and CO emissions and a reduc-
tion in brake thermal efficiency and NOx emission
when using Poon oil. They also showed that the com-
bustion of Poon oil–diesel blends was better than the
neat biofuel.
Giakoumis and Alafouzos8 used the engine mapping
technique to make an initial assessment on the engine
performance and emissions during a speed/torque ver-
sus time transient cycle. They concluded that urban
driving was responsible for most of the engine-out emis-
sions. They reasoned that it is due to the most frequent
and abrupt load changes involved.
Fu et al.9 also used the engine mapping technique to
study the energy and exergy as well as the potential for
waste heat recovery for a spark ignition engine using
gasoline as fuel. They concluded that at low engine
speeds, the prime focus should be toward the engine
coolant, while at higher engine speeds, attention should
be directed toward exhaust gasses.
The major problem with most of the research avail-
able in the literature is that none has tried to explore
the best engine performance parameters or draw the
engine performance map using this new fuel. This
research article is the first to try to do this experimen-
tally by drawing the engine performance map for the
engine using biofuel. An engine fuel consumption map
was drawn for both fuels. Brake mean effective pressure
(BMEP) was used in the map to eliminate the effect of
engine size. BMEP is the average (hypothetical) pres-
sure that is thought to be acting on the piston through-
out the cycle to produce the same amount of work
found by integrating the variation in pressure and vol-
ume along the cycle. Since there is no universally
accepted and adapted definition for thermal efficiency,
researchers use brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC)
rather than thermal efficiency.
Engines operate under variable speeds and load
ranges. The fuel consumed by a moving vehicle during
a trip is calculated by the BSFC, the BMEP, and engine
speed. A standard way of presenting these three data is
a contour plot showing lines of constant fuel consump-
tion on a load and speed plane. This graph is called the
engine or performance map. It contains the necessary
information to estimate the fuel consumption by an
engine given the load and speed.
Therefore, to utilize the properties of the fuel to its
best, one has to find the performance map of the engine
based on the new fuel properties. This will enable the
Yamin and Abu Mushref
Figure 1. The experimental setup.
1: engine, 2: brake dynamometer, 3: load switch, 4: data logger, 5: inlet air flow orifice, 6: air box, 7: flexible diaphragm, 8: fuel tank, 9: control unit, 10:
inclined manometer, 11: fuel flow burette, 12: air inlet manifold, 13: hot water outlet, 14: water flow orifice, 15: coupling belt, 16: manometer, 17:
cooling tower, and 18: water pump.
designer to utilize the properties of the fuel to its fullest.
This map was found for the waste oil biodiesel, which
was made from UoJ restaurants, and the engine perfor-
mance parameters were studied compared with original
petrodiesel. Biodiesel has advantages over ordinary die-
sel regarding its sulfur content, aromatic contents, and
flash point.
Experimental setup
The work plan for this research was divided into the fol-
lowing three main parts: production of WFOBD using
both KOH and NaOH catalysts and testing their prop-
erties and decide which one is suitable for compression
ignition (CI) engines. Testing the relative change in
engine performance and mapping using both fuels.
Using the obtained data for simulation and to further
draw engine mapping. The first part is well documented
in other published articles of the authors.4,10,11 Hence,
there was no need to repeat the procedure in this article.
Engine setup
This study was conducted using the Tempest, 1500 cc,
four-stroke, four-cylinder, direct injection, water-cooled
CI engine dynamometer testbed. Two orifice plates with
manometers were used to measure the coolant and air
mass flow rate. The testbed is shown in Figure 1.
3
Engine performance was shown by plotting engine
torque (as the dependent variable) and engine speed (as
an independent one). This performance curve is called
an engine map curve. Then, the contours of constant
BSFC are superimposed on the map. This map was
drawn for all engine speeds and loads to cover the entire
operational range of the engine.
The areas in the map that show low BSFC indicate that
these are the regions within the engine operation where the
engine can produce power, torque, or work at less fuel
consumption rate.12 After all measurement systems were
corrected from drift and set to zero, the experiment began
with ordinary locally used diesel fuel in Jordan to set the
baseline performance; then, biofuel was introduced.
The engine conditions were kept as close as those
used in the diesel fuel test to eliminate any variability in
the results due to different conditions. The test data
were measured twice with increasing and decreasing
loads and speeds (to the best capability of the engine),
and the average reading was taken. The engine was
given a good time to reach the steady state (which was
in some cases difficult to achieve by 100%).
This was done by checking the coolant temperature
at engine outlet, exhaust temperature, and engine
speed. Some problems were encountered with the
engine speed measurement, which was little fluctuating.
Furthermore, due to the non-steady water supply, the
water outlet temperature was allowed to vary by
6 4°C, which was the best control we could achieve.
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Table 1. Engine specifications.
Type Tempest, 30 testbed,
water-cooled,
four-stroke
Number of cylinders 4
Diameter 3 stroke (mm) 73 3 89
Compression ratio 21.5
Connecting rod length (mm) 156
Inlet valve diameter (mm) 34.5
Exhaust valve diameter (mm) 28.5
IVO/IVC 15 bTDC/25 aBDC
EVO/EVC 13 bBDC/10 aTDC
IVO: inlet valve opening; IVC: inlet valve closing; EVO: exhaust valve
opening; EVC: exhaust valve closing; TDC: top dead center; BDC:
bottom dead center; a: after; b: before.
Engine speeds were varied between 30 and 60 rps.
Engine speeds outside this range could not be reached
due to excessive vibrations of the engine and dynam-
ometer. Three loads were chosen, that is full, half
load, and no load. At each throttle position and fixed
speed, the load was varied from lowest to full load
and each time the air, fuel, and cooling water mass
flow rates were noted, the engine torque and tempera-
tures at different locations were also measured.
Performance maps as functions of the engine speed,
BSFC, BMEP, and brake power at different loads have
been produced using data obtained from the experimen-
tal setup. These data were then fed to engine simulation
software (Diesel-RK) already validated for this engine,
and the effect of other parameters, for example, injection
timing and atmospheric conditions, was varied. The final
diagram was drawn with the help of specialized software.
Specification of the engine is shown in Table 1. The
data obtained were then used to verify/modify the
model used in Diesel-RK software with the primary
aim of drawing the engine map.
Model verification
Figure 2 represents a comparison between the experi-
mental and model results for both fuels. Figure 2 shows
Figure 2. Model verification at full load.
that the model can be used for this study with a reason-
able degree of accuracy.
Results and discussion
In this chapter, the various test results for the fuels and
engine are presented and discussed.
Results of biodiesel production methods
In this section, the results will be presented and dis-
cussed in two main parts. The first part will discuss the
process of making biofuel. The second part will be
directed to engine mapping.
Achieving low viscosity biodiesel yield was the prime
aim of changing the catalyst. Moderate values of fuel
viscosity make it more suitable for its function as fuel
in CI engine.
Researchers have tested numerous options and pro-
cesses to produce a biofuel that is suitable for ICEs.
Among the variables tested were raw material, lye, and
catalysts used in the making of biofuel. In this study,
the use of alkalis only was tested mainly because the
transesterification of vegetable oils occurs faster with
alkali-catalyzed reactions than with acid-catalyzed one.
The procedure followed in this research was in
accordance to the methods found in the literature.13
With reference to Table 2, the viscosity of the biodiesel
produced by KOH catalyst is 4.7 cP, and so it is lower
than the viscosity of biodiesel by NaOH as a catalyst.
Viscosity is a prime property of any fuel as it indi-
cates the flowability of a material. It, therefore, influ-
ences the injection system’s operation, especially at low
temperatures.
It also influences the spray pattern, volume flow,
and fuel distribution inside the engine cylinder. This
had an undesired effect on the process of combustion
and the engine emissions. The maximum allowable limit
according to ASTM D445 ranges is 1.9–6.0 and 3.5–
5.0 mm2/s in EN ISO 3104.14 Further noticed in Table 2
is the slightly higher acid value for KOH-based biodie-
sel compared with NaOH one.
Yamin and Abu Mushref 5

Table 2. Biodiesel properties.

Type of Methanol/ Weight Weight of Yield (%) Acid value Acid value Density Viscosity (cP) Caloric value
catalyst oil (%) of oil (g) biodiesel (g) of oil of biodiesel (g/cm3) (MJ/kg)

KOH 20 45.905 43.532 94.830 1 0.35 0.882 4.7 37.56

NaOH 20 43.688 28.549 65.347 1 0.32 0.892 5.1 35.85

KOH: potassium hydroxide; NaOH: sodium hydroxide.

Acid number is a measure of free fatty acids (FFA)

contained in a fresh fuel sample. A higher amount of
FFA leads to higher acid value. The acid value is
expressed as milligram KOH required for neutralizing
1 g of fatty acid methyl esters (FAME). Higher rates of
corrosion can be inflicted on the fuel injection system
components if fuel with higher acid content is used.
The acid value is determined using the ASTM D664
and EN 14104. Both standards approved a maximum
acid value for biodiesel of 0.50 mg KOH/g.15
Percentage yield is another property noticed from
Table 2. It is the percentage of feedstock that (actually)
gets converted to useful materials, that is biodiesel
materials. It is clear from the table that with KOH, the
percentage yield is much higher than NaOH.
The literature is full of research work explaining the
reason for this trend. The reaction of methanol with
sodium methoxide and vegetable oil is very quick.
Complete transesterification of triglyceride at room tem-
perature may take place within 2–5 min. Using the same
triglyceride samples with equivalent molar concentra-
tions, potassium methoxide is quicker in completing the
esterification process compared with sodium methoxide.
Because of the risks in handling metallic potassium, it is
preferable to use sodium methoxide in methanol.16
Heating value can be defined as the amount of heat-
ing energy released by the combustion of a unit quan-
tity of fuels. The presence of moisture in the raw
material has a greater influence on the heating value of
the fuel. A minimum of 35 MJ/kg for biodiesel is pre-
scribed in EN 14213 (biodiesel for the heating purpose).
As noticed in Table 2, the biodiesel produced with
the NaOH catalyst has around 4.5% less energy con-
tent compared with KOH-based biodiesel. This reduc-
tion in the energy content of the fuel may increase the
gap of energy loss that already exists between the bio-
diesel fuel and ordinary diesel.15
Table 3. Fuel specifications.
Fuel Diesel fuel Biodiesel fuel
Viscosity at room 5.2 4.7
temperature (cP)
Density at 15 C (kg/m3) 844 882
Calorific value (MJ/kg) 45.212 37.56
Sulfur content (wt%) 1.2% 0%
Cetane number 45 54
The presence of oxygen in biodiesel structure, which
does not count in the calorific value of the fuel can be
thought of to be the prime cause for this reduction in
the biofuel calorific value. This means that when used
as monofuel or dual fuel, the amount of energy admit-
ted to the engine will be reduced. Hence, the engine
should consume more fuel to obtain the same perfor-
mance of that of pure diesel-powered engine.
Hence, in addition to the loss of power (or torque
or work or mean effective pressure (MEP)) the
engine’s SFC is expected to rise (and its efficiency to
drop) compared with ordinary diesel fuel. Further
noticed is the lower viscosity of biodiesel compared
with the diesel fuel. There is approximately 9.6%
reduction in the fuel’s viscosity compared with diesel.
This means that it can be easily injected, atomized,
and mixed with the air. However, this will affect the
lubricity of the fuel and may harm the fuel system
components.
Hence, lubricant additive is recommended to be added
to the fuel to improve its lubrication effect. An attractive
property of biodiesel is the absence of sulfur content com-
pared with the Jordanian diesel fuel. Hence, it would be
expected that sulfur dioxide concentrations of the exhaust
should be less than that for pure diesel fuel.

Engine Performance Resoles

Fuel properties
The relative properties of both fuels as measured in
laboratory are listed in Table 3. The first thing to notice
is the lower value of biofuel’s calorific value compared
with ordinary diesel fuel. Biofuel has approximately
11.75% less energy content compared with ordinary
petrodiesel.
This section discusses the engine performance using the
above mentioned fuels.
Brake power and torque
Brake power and torque represent the actual energy,
force, or work available at the crankshaft. As noticed in
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 3. Variation in brake power.
Figures 3 and 4, the engine power and torque decrease
as the load decreases. This trend is evident in the case of
biodiesel fuel more than diesel. Further noticed is that
within the speed and load range studied, the engine per-
formance with diesel fuel is better than that for the bio-
diesel fuel.
This is in agreement with several researchers who
reported power losses in the same range as the reduction
in heating value. Yucesu et al.17 reported a 3%–8% loss
in the engine torque and power using cottonseed biofuel,
which has 5% less energy content. Murillo et al.18 also
reported a 7.14% loss in the engine power using waste
cooking oil biodiesel, which is in the same range as the
difference in heating value. Von Wedel19 also reported a
loss of about 17% in engine power when using waste oil
biodiesel.
Biofuel viscosity, as shown in the majority of the lit-
erature, was used to explain the torque and power
trend, especially at full load concerning that obtained
with diesel fuel. The higher bulk modulus and sound
velocity of biodiesel, together with its higher viscosity,
lead to an advanced start of injection. However, greater
than specified values of viscosity cause performance
and spray problems to the engine fuel supply system.
This, ultimately, has a negative effect on the combus-
tion and emission characteristics of the engine. This
behavior made the viscosity of prime concern when
searching for alternatives to conventional fuel. This,
jointly with any cetane number increase, may slightly
advance the start of combustion. Higher engine powers
may be achieved by higher lubricity value fuels as it
causes the frictional losses to reduce.
Furthermore, torque (t) can be written for a single
cylinder, four-stroke engines as follows20
F

bustion process) as well as the higher cetane number
h 3 hvol 3 Vs 3 QHV 3 rai 3
t = th A
ð1Þ
43p
Figure 4. Variation in brake torque.
where hth is the fuel conversion efficiency, hvol is the
volumetric efficiency, Vs is the swept volume (m3), QHV
is the calorific value (kJ/kg), rai is the density of
the fresh air at the engine inlet conditions (kg/m3), and
(F/A) is the fuel-to-air ratio on mass basis.
Equation (1) suggests that fuel conversion and volu-
metric efficiencies, the swept volume, calorific value of
the fuel, air density at inlet conditions, and fuel–air
ratio influence the torque developed by the engine.21
Engine power (P) can be written for a single cylinder,
four-stroke engines as follows20
F


h 3 hvol 3 Vs 3 NQHV 3 rai 3
P = th A
ð2Þ
2
where N is the engine speed (rps).
On the contrary, based on equation (2) engine power
is mainly affected by the fuel conversion and volumetric
efficiencies, the swept volume, fuel calorific value, air
density at inlet conditions, engine speed, and fuel–air
ratio. Equations (1) and (2) reiterate the fact that fuel’s
calorific value and fuel conversion and volumetric effi-
ciency affect both engine power and torque.
Referring to Figure 5, it can be noticed that for all
the loads and speed range studied, the thermal effi-
ciency for diesel fuel engine is slightly higher than that
for biodiesel engine. Similar results were shown by Von
Wedel.19 A combination of several factors resulted in
this reduction of thermal efficiency, that is, lower brake
power, lower heating value, and a higher fuel flow rate.
All of which resulted in the loss of thermal efficiency.
The improvement in thermal efficiency with biofuel
can be related to the existence of oxygen in the biofuel
structure (which increases the concentration of the total
oxygen inside the cylinder and helps improve the com-
(which makes the fuel combustion much better and eas-
ier). These properties lead to favorable effects on the
Yamin and Abu Mushref
Figure 5. Variation in thermal efficiency.
Figure 6. Variation in BSFC.
combustion process and improve thermal efficiency
slightly in biodiesel operation in spite of the lower heat-
ing value of biodiesel.
Hence, providing better combustion and increasing
brake power and consequently causing higher thermal
efficiency but still less than the diesel engine.
The values of thermal efficiencies with different loads
for both fuels are approximately changed in a limited
range, except no-load operation. In Figure 5, the ther-
mal efficiency for diesel engine differs from biodiesel
engine in a big range.
Variation in BSFC
BSFC defines the amount of fuel needed by the engine
to produce 1 kWh of useful energy output.
7
Figure 7. Mass flow rate.
For a given fuel, it is inversely proportional to ther-
mal efficiency, which defines how effectively the engine
is utilizing the energy input to produce useful work out-
put. BSFC can be written as follows20
m_ f
BSFC = ð3Þ
BP
This indicates that the parameters that control the
engine BSFC are the fuel consumption rate and brake
power.
The variations in BSFC with engine revolution for
diesel fuel and biodiesel fuel are shown in Figure 6 for
all loads. For both fuels tested, minimum BSFC was
measured at about 52.75 r/min as 0.323 kg/kWh and at
48.36 rpm as 0.3427 kg/kWh biodiesel fuel. The average
BSFC for biodiesel is 6% higher than diesel fuel.
One possible explanation for this increase could be
due to lower heating value and density of biodiesel fuel.
The figure also shows that the differences in BSFC are
shallow at no load. This difference rises with the load.
For all other loads, BSFC for diesel fuel is lower than
that for biodiesel fuel. This is expected due to the lower
heating value of biodiesel.
Based on the study conducted by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the following
equation was obtained with 95% confidence interval21
BSFC
= e0:0008189%B ð4Þ
BSFCD
Variations in mass flow rate
The variations in mass flow rate with engine revolution
for diesel fuel and biodiesel fuel are presented in Figure 7
for all loads. The maximum mass flow rate was measured
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 8. Exhaust temperature.
at 60 r/min as 0.0017 kg/s for diesel fuel and 54.79 r/min
as 0.0016 kg/s for biodiesel fuel. The maximum mass flow
rate of biodiesel fuel decreased with 5%.
Mass flow rate values of both fuels are very close to
one another, and biodiesel fuel’s mass flow rate value
was slightly lower than diesel fuel. This was due to
lower density and higher viscosity. Figure 7 shows the
comparison between the variations in mass flow rate
with the different loads for both fuels, as the mass flow
rate rise with the increase in the engine load for both
fuels.
But the increase in the diesel mass flow rate in the
diesel engine is more than biodiesel when the load
increased, and the differences in mass flow rate between
diesel and biodiesel fuels are very small at full load.
Variation in the exhaust temperature
The variations in exhaust temperature with engine rev-
olution for diesel fuel and biodiesel are indicated in
Figure 8.
Maximum exhaust temperatures were measured
between 50 and 55 rps. At this point, maximum power
was also obtained. These temperatures were determined
as 585°C for diesel fuel and 552°C for biodiesel fuel at
52 rps.
Exhaust temperatures for biodiesel fuel were lower
by 5.6% at all test periods than diesel fuel. This could
be because biodiesel fuel has a higher cetane number
and lower heating value than diesel fuel. Hence, shorter
ignition delay and peak cylinder temperature for the
case of biodiesel. Figure 8 also shows the variations in
exhaust temperature with engine loads for both fuels.
As shown in the figure, for the same engine speed,
the exhaust temperature increases with the increase in
the engine load for both fuels. However, the rise in
Figure 9. Heat release rate comparison at full load.
exhaust temperature for the diesel fuel is more signifi-
cant than a biodiesel engine.
Heat release rate
Heat release rate (HRR) comparison between the two
fuels is shown in Figure 9 for all loads at 2100 r/min.
As shown in Figure 9, biodiesel fuel starts the combus-
tion process earlier during the premix phase than petro-
diesel. This may be the result of the higher compressi-
bility14 and cetane number of biodiesel compared with
diesel.
Indicator diagram
Another parameter that helps understand the above-
mentioned engine behavior is the indicator diagram.
Figure 10(a)–(c) show the indicator diagram at 2100 r/
min for full, half, and no load, respectively. The figures
show higher cylinder pressures for both full and half
load for the case of diesel fuel.
Another thing shown by the figure is the slight delay
in fuel combustion with diesel fuel. This is clearly
shown in Figure 9.
At lower loads, the performance is in favor of biodie-
sel. Several researchers14 attributed this to the fuel com-
pressibility and higher cetane number.
Temperature theta diagram
Similar trend is shown in Figure 11, which shows the
temperature variation in the cylinder for both fuels at
all loads at 2100 r/min. The higher cylinder temperature
for full and half loads for the case of diesel engine indi-
cates higher heat release rates and hence better engine
performance.
Yamin and Abu Mushref 9

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 10. Indicator diagram at 2100 r/min: (a) full load, (b) half load, and (c) no load.

Figure 11. Average cylinder temperature for all loads.

Engine mapping
The two maps shown in Figures 12 and 13 summarize
the performance of the engine based on fuel and power
parameters. They were drawn with the help of Diesel-
RK software.22
Figure 12. Engine map for diesel fuel engine.
Those maps can be fed to the engine controller to
choose the required rod-load curve characteristics.
10
Figure 13. Engine map for biodiesel fuel engine.
Concerning the abovementioned maps, a diesel-
powered engine has the lowest fuel consumption of
around 250–300 g/kWh at the relatively higher power
and MEP values. While for the biodiesel fuels this is
around 350–400 g/kWh at relatively lower engine
speeds, power, and mean effective cylinder pressure.
This shows the advantage of using diesel fuel over
biodiesel. It can be observed from both Figures 12 and
13 that at fixed engine speed, increasing engine load
decreases BSFC, for example, at average speeds that is
40–45 rps the BSFC of diesel fuel engine decreased from
0.7 to 0.3 kg/kWh while that for biodiesel decreased
from approximately 0.65 kg/kWh to less than 0.35 kg/
kWh as the BMEP increased from 100 to 400 kPa.
Now, keeping in mind that friction losses are mainly
related to the speed of mechanical parts of the engine,
so at a constant speed, when increasing engine load,
efficiency is gained, as an increase in the mechanical
power without actually changing the friction losses.
Similar results were also found by Lapuerta and
Cheikh21,23 According to the contour slope in the
maps, if the engine speed increases, BSFC increases
slightly for diesel fuel.
However, for pure biodiesel, BSFC changes with a
more significant amount than that for diesel fuel. At a
specific load, the injection pump delivers the same vol-
ume of fuel, but the higher density of biodiesel com-
pared to diesel (844 kg/m3 for diesel and 882 kg/m3 for
biodiesel) led to an increase in fuel mass flow rate, also
shown in Figure 7. The heating value of pure biodiesel
is approximately 11.75% less than that for diesel, both
the abovementioned factors led to increasing BSFC of
biodiesel compared with diesel fuel.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Conclusion
The primary results obtained from this study are as fol-
lows: using KOH as a catalyst to make biodiesel pro-
duce much better results than NaOH.
The experimental results of this study showed lower
average brake power for biodiesel for all loads due to
its lower heating value and also the biofuel has a lower
thermal efficiency than the regular diesel. A diesel-
powered engine has the lowest fuel consumption of
around 250–300 g/kWh at the relatively higher power
and MEP values.
While for the biodiesel fuels this is around 350 g/
kWh at relatively lower engine speeds, power, and mean
effective cylinder pressure. This shows the advantage of
using diesel fuel over biodiesel. The engine mapping
results show that operation with regular diesel fuel
tends to be more effective (economic and at higher
power) at moderate engine speeds (around 40–45 rps
within the range studied) while that for biodiesel is at
lower speeds.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Jehad Yamin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7874-358X
References
1. Phan AN and Phan TM. Biodiesel production from
waste cooking oils. Fuel 2008; 87: 3490–3496.
2. Canakci M and Van Gerpen J. Biodiesel production
from oils and fats with high free fatty acids. T Am Soc
Agric Eng 2001; 44: 1429–1436.
3. Sahoo PK and Das LM. Combustion analysis of Jatro-
pha, Karanja and Polanga based biodiesel as fuel in a
diesel engine. Fuel 2009; 88: 994–999.
4. Yamin JA, Sakhnini N, Sakhrieh A, et al. Environmental
and performance study of a 4-Stroke CI engine powered
with waste oil biodiesel. Sustain Cities Soc 2013; 9:
32–38.
5. Utlu Z and Kocxak MS. The effect of biodiesel fuel
obtained from waste frying oil on direct injection diesel
engine performance and exhaust emissions. Renew Energ
2008; 33: 1936–1941.
6. Lapuerta M, Rodrı́guez-Fernández J and Agudelo JR.
Diesel particulate emissions from used cooking oil bio-
diesel. Bioresour Technol 2008; 99: 731–740.
Yamin and Abu Mushref
7. Devan PK and Mahalakshmi NV. Performance, emission
and combustion characteristics of poon oil and its diesel
blends in a DI diesel engine. Fuel 2009; 88: 861–867.
8. Giakoumis EG and Alafouzos AI. Study of diesel engine
performance and emissions during a transient cycle
applying an engine mapping-based methodology. Appl
Energ 2010; 87: 1358–1365.
9. Fu J, Liu J, Feng R, et al. Energy and exergy analysis on
gasoline engine based on mapping characteristics experi-
ment. Appl Energ 2013; 102: 622–630.
10. Yamin JA. Performance comparison of a CI engine using
diesel and biodiesel fuels and a magnetic fuel conditioner.
Biofuels 2018; 9: 729–738.
11. Yamin JA, Sheet EAE and Hdaib I. Exergy analysis of
biodiesel fueled direct injection CI engines. Energ Sour
Part A Recover Util Environ Effect 2018; 40: 1351–1358.
12. Goering CE and Cho H. Engine model for mapping
BSFC contours. Math Comput Model 1988; 11: 514–518.
13. Vicente G, Martınez M and Aracil J. Integrated biodiesel
production: a comparison of different homogeneous cata-
lysts systems. Bioresour Technol 2004; 92: 297–305.
14. Atabani AE, Silitonga AS, Badruddin IA, et al. A com-
prehensive review on biodiesel as an alternative energy
resource and its characteristics. Renew Sustain Energ Rev
2012; 16: 2070–2093.
11
15. Demirbas A. Progress and recent trends in biodiesel fuels.
Energ Convers Manage 2009; 50: 14–34.
16. Ramadhas AS, Jayaraj S and Muraleedharan C. Use of
vegetable oils as IC engine fuels—a review. Renew Energ
2004; 29: 727–742.
_
17. Yücesu HS and Ilkilicx C. Effect of cotton seed oil methyl
ester on the performance and exhaust emission of a diesel
engine. Energ Sour Part A Recover Util Environ Effect
2006; 28: 389–398.
18. Murillo S, Miguez JL, Porteiro J, et al. Performance and
exhaust emissions in the use of biodiesel in outboard die-
sel engines. Fuel 2007; 86: 1765–1771.
19. Von Wedel R. CytoCulture International, Inc, 1999.
20. Heywood JB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals,
vol. 930. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988.
21. Lapuerta M, Armas O and Rodrı́guez-Fernández J.
Effect of biodiesel fuels on diesel engine emissions. Prog
Energ Combust Sci 2008; 34: 198–223.
22. http://www.diesel-rk.bmstu.ru/Eng/index.php
23. Cheikh K, Sary A, Khaled L, et al. Experimental assess-
ment of performance and emissions maps for biodiesel
fueled compression ignition engine. Appl Energ 2016;
161: 320–329.