Performance and emission characteristics of an agricultural diesel engine fueled with blends of Sal methyl esters and diesel

Energy Conversion and Management 90 (2015) 146–153

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Performance and emission characteristics of an agricultural diesel engine fueled with blends of Sal methyl esters and diesel Harveer S. Pali a,b,⇑, N. Kumar a, Y. Alhassan a a b

Centre for Advanced Studies & Research in Automotive Engineering, Delhi Technological University, 110042 Delhi, India Noida Institute of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida 201306, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 25 August 2014 Accepted 30 October 2014

Keywords: Biodiesel Diesel engine Emission Performance Sal seed oil Transesterification

a b s t r a c t The present work deals with an underutilized vegetable oil; Sal seed oil (Shorea robusta) as a feedstock for biodiesel production. The production potential of Sal seed oil is very promising (1.5 million tons in a year) in India. The pressure filtered Sal seed oil was transesterified into Sal Methyl Ester (SME). The kinematic viscosity (5.89 cSt), density (0.8764 g/cc) and calorific value (39.65 MJ/kg) of the SME were well within the ASTM/EN standard limits. Various test fuels were prepared for the engine trials by blending 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% of SME in diesel on volumetric basis and designated as SME10, SME20, SME30 and SME40 respectively. The BTE, in general, was found to be decreased with increased volume fraction of SME in the blends. At full load, BSEC for SME10, SME20, SME30 and SME40 were 13.6 MJ/kW h, 14.3 MJ/kW h, 14.7 MJ/kW h and 14.8 MJ/kW h respectively as compared to 13.9 MJ/kW h in case of diesel. At higher load conditions, CO, UHC and smoke emissions were found lower for all SME blends in comparison to neat diesel due to oxygenated nature of fuel. SME10, SME20, SME30 and SME40 showed 51 ppm, 44 ppm, 46 ppm and 48 ppm of UHC emissions respectively as compared to 60 ppm of diesel. The NOx emissions were found to be increased for SME based fuel in comparison to neat diesel operation. At peak load condition, SME10, SME20, SME30 and SME40 had NOx emissions of 612 ppm, 644 ppm, 689 ppm and 816 ppm as compared to 499 ppm for diesel. It may be concluded from the experimental investigations that Sal seed biodiesel is a potential alternative to diesel fuel for reducing dependence on crude petroleum derived fuels and also to reduce pollution significantly. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Energy is one of the key drivers for socio-economic development and fossil fuels contribute about 80% of the world’s energy needs [1]. However, uncertainties about long term supply of these fuels coupled with prize increase and environmental degradation due to indiscriminate burning of these fuels is of great concern as well. The global warming and environmental degradation mandates emission reduction strategies, either by improved engine technology or use of environmental friendly fuels [2–4]. Biodiesel has emerged as one of the most important sustainable fuels for reducing air pollution and providing new energy sources in rural communities in line with the Millennium Development Goals [5–7]. It is very promising owing to its renewability, thus guaranties energy security and environmental benefits.

⇑ Corresponding author at: Noida Institute of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida 201306, India. Tel.: +91 9971695452. E-mail address: [email protected] (H.S. Pali). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.10.064 0196-8904/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

India’s crude oil requirement in 2011–12 was 210 million tones with indigenous production capacity of only 18%. India already has 17% of the World’s population and just around 0.8% of the World’s known oil and natural gas reserves. The energy demand is expected to increase due to its increasing population [8]. Diesel engines play a significant role in Indian economy [9]. Therefore, diesel consumption in India is nearly 4–5 times higher than that of gasoline [8]. However, such engines are also main contributors of harmful emissions and there is an urgent need to look for alternatives to petroleum derived diesel to reduce these harmful emissions [10]. Significant research work has been documented with regards to the production, characterization and engine applications of biodiesel derived from variety of vegetable oils. Koh and Ghazi [11] reviewed the different biodiesel production routes using Jatropha curcas oil, highlighting molar ratio of alcohol to oil, catalyst concentration, reaction temperature and reaction time as the main factors affecting the biodiesel yield. The performance of biodiesel in diesel engines has been extensively investigated. The engine power output was found to be equivalent to that of diesel fuel. Dhar et al. [12] reported maximum torque for 10% and 20% KOME

H.S. Pali et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 90 (2015) 146–153

147

Definitions/Abbreviations D100 SME SME10 SME20 SME30 SME40 °CA BMEP CO UHC NOx BTE BSEC

Neat diesel Sal methyl ester (Sal seed biodiesel) blend of 10% SME and 90% diesel blend of 20% SME and 80% diesel blend of 30% SME and 70% diesel blend of 40% SME and 60% diesel degrees of crank angle rotations brake mean effective pressure carbon monoxide unburnt hydrocarbons oxides of nitrogen brake thermal efficiency brake specific energy consumption

blends which were higher than mineral diesel. Higher Karanja biodiesel blends produced slightly lower torque. These findings are similar to results reported by Karnwal et al. [13]. Similarly, Raheman and Ghadge [14] found comparable performance of Mahua biodiesel and its blends with petroleum based diesel. Other findings include; emissions reduction, increase brake power and BSFC. The BSFC, for all biodiesel–diesel blends increases with increasing blending ratio and decreases with increasing engine speed [15]. Raheman and Ghadge [14] found that, CO, UHC and smoke emissions of Karanja biodiesel blends were lower than that of mineral diesel but NOx emissions were slightly higher. Shehata et al. [16] prepared biodiesel from Cotton seed, Palm and Flax oils, showing less brake power, high BSFC, lower CO and smoke with marginal increase in NOx emissions. Murlidharan et al. [17] indicated almost similar results. Mufijur et al. [18] have also reported reduction in UHC and CO emissions but higher NOx emission. It is evident that most of the work has been focused on edible oils and a small quantum of work has been carried on non edible oils for biodiesel production and its subsequent utilization. It is also pertinent to note that amongst the non edible oils, Jatropha, Karanja, Mahua and some other feedstocks have been explored. However, Sal seed oil, which is a under utilized non-edible vegetable oil in India, is not adequately studied. The present work deals with the production of biodiesel from ‘‘Sal seed oil’’, its physicochemical characterization and evaluation of engine performance and emission characteristics. 2. Materials and methods Sal seed oil was purchased from a local vendor in New Delhi, India. All materials and reagents used were of analytical grade (AnalaR) except otherwise stated. Containers and other apparatus were initially washed with liquid detergent, rinsed with 20% (v/ v) nitric acid and finally rinsed with distilled water. 2.1. Sal seed (Shorea robusta) Shorea robusta is a large tree up to 50 m tall. It has clean bole, straight and cylindrical branches. The tree develops a long taproot. Its fruit at full size is about 1.3–1.5 cm long. Fig. 1 presents the various parts of the tree and its seeds [19].

ppm °C K cSt MJ/kg KW h RPM cc wt.% v/v DAS BSFC w/w

parts per million degree celsius Kelvin centi-stoke mega joules per kilogram kilo-watt-hour rotations per minute centimeter cube percentage by weight volume wise substitution data acquisition system brake specific fuel consumption weight wise substitution

of KOH as catalyst [20]. The free fatty acid (FFA) content of the Sal seed oil was less than 2%, so a single stage transesterification process was used to produce Sal methyl ester. The transesterification was conducted using 0.5% (w/w) Potassium hydroxide as catalyst, 65 °C reaction temperature and 90 min reaction time with constant stirring at 450 rpm, followed by different stages as presented in Fig. 2. The same process parameters were used to produce large quantity of biodiesel in the 10 l capacity reactor [21]. The general scheme of the transesterification reaction is presented in Fig. 3, where R is a mixture of fatty acid chains. Based upon the preliminary trials with higher percentage of SME conducted earlier, some undesirable operational challenges were noticed and the maximum blending percentage of 40% was selected for the present work. Four test fuel samples were prepared with 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% of SME with mineral diesel (v/v) and were designated as SME10, SME20, SME30 and SME40 respectively. The neat diesel was coded as D100. The physico-chemical properties were evaluated for all test fuels taking into considerations experimental uncertainties. The fatty acid profile was determined using Gas chromatographic technique described by Alhassan et al. [22]. 2.3. Experimental engine setup A single cylinder, four stroke, water cooled diesel engine was used for the present work. The engine develops 3.5 kW at rated speed of 1500 rpm. The injection pressure was 200 bar. Such engines are extensively utilized in agricultural sector of India for irrigation. The block diagram of experimental setup is presented in Fig. 4. The loading was provided by an eddy current dynamometer coupled with the engine shaft. In addition, a magnetic rpm sensor was attached at the end of the dynamometer for rpm measurement. Two separate tanks were used for diesel and biodiesel (SME) blends. Air flow rate was measured using a mass airflow sensor while fuel consumption rate was measured by 20 cc burette and stop watch with level sensors. The gaseous emissions were measured from an exhaust surge tank. UHC, CO, and NOx were measured with the help of an AVL Digas emission analyzer and smoke opacity was measured using an AVL 437 smoke meter. The uncertainties and measurements repeatability are presented in Table 1. 3. Results and discussion

2.2. Production and characterization of SME and blends Biodiesel was produced using transesterification process in which, the triglycerides was reacted with an methanol in presence

The experimental results are reported and discussed in the present section. The results of the physico-chemical studies of Sal seed oil is presented as under.

148

H.S. Pali et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 90 (2015) 146–153

Fig. 1. Components of Shorea robusta leaves, seeds and oil.

Fig. 2. Various steps of Sal biodiesel production.

O

O H 2C

O

C

H 2C

R1

O

O HC

O

C

R2

+

3 CH 3 OH

Catalyst

HC

O

O H 2C

O

C

Triglyceride

C

R1

O C

+

R2

O H 2C

R3 +

Methenol

O

C

Mixture of Fatty Esters

H 2C

OH

HC

OH

H 2C

OH

R3 +

Glycerol

Fig. 3. Schematic reaction equation for transesterification reaction.

3.1. Physico-chemical properties of Sal seed oil Various physico-chemical and fuel properties including density, viscosity, calorific value, cold filter plugging point, oxidations stability and fatty acids composition were determined according to standard methods. The differences in the physico-chemical

properties as well as engine design results in significant differences in the combustion behavior of biodiesels [23]. Table 2 presents the average values of the physico-chemical properties of neat SME, diesel and their blends. Neat SME showed 6.5% higher density than mineral diesel, however, it was still well within the standard limit of 0.86–0.89 g/cc

149

H.S. Pali et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 90 (2015) 146–153

SENSOR Biodiesel tank

AVL DI gas Analyzer

Diesel tank

a= Fuel channel b= Air channel c= RPM channel

LOAD

b 10

9

c

a

7

5 8 6

1

Control Panel Air Filter

Exhaust Surge Tank

3 2

W

4 Engine Eddy current dynamometer

Computer

Fig. 4. Experimental Line diagram of engine setup. ⁄ 1. Air flow sensor, 2. Flywheel, 3. Strain gauge type load cell, 4. Magnetic pick up type RPM sensor, 5. Two way valve, 6. Data Acquisition System, 7. Optical slot sensor for fuel flow, 8. Burette for fuel, 9. Load variation switch with indicator, and 10. Sensor indicator with channel.

Table 1 Accuracies and uncertainties of measurements. S.N.

Measurements

Measurement principle

Range

Accuracy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Engine load Speed Time Exhaust Temperature Carbon monoxide Carbon dioxide Total hydrocarbons Oxides of nitrogen Smoke Crank angle encoder

Strain gauge type load cell Magnetic pick up type Stop watch K-type thermocouple Non-dispersive infrared Non-dispersive infrared Non-dispersive infrared Electrochemical Photochemical Optical

0–25 kg 0–2000 rpm – 0–1000 °C 0–10% vol. 0–20% vol. 0–20,000 ppm 0–4000 ppm 0–100% 0–720 °CA

±0.1Kg ±20 rpm ±0.5% ±1 °C ±0.2% ±0.2% ±2 ppm ±15 ppm ±2% ±0.2 °CA

11 12 13 14 15

Calculated results Engine power Fuel consumption Air consumption BTE BSEC

– Level sensor Turbine flow type – –

0–8 kW – – – –

Uncertainty ±1.0% ±2.0% ±1.0% ±1.0% ±1.5%

The repeatability of all measurements were checked throughout the experimental trial and found sufficiently close.

Table 2 Physico-chemical properties of Sal Methyl Esters. Properties

Diesel

SME

SME10

SME20

SME30

SME40

Density at 15 °C (g/cc) Viscosity at 40 °C (cSt) Calorific value (MJ/kg) CFPP (°C) Oxidation stability (hours) Flash point (°C)

0.8227 3.2 45.49 9 – 61

0.8765 5.89 39.65 12 <6 127

0.8281 3.23 45.16 0 <6 67.3

0.8333 3.36 45.07 4 <6 71.5

0.8396 3.69 43.97 7 <6 76.8

0.845 3.99 43.73 9 <6 85.67

Footnote: The oxidation stability of the neat SME was higher than 6 h and confirmed to EN14112 standards.

according to ISO standard. The kinematic viscosity of SME sample was higher than diesel, but it suitably conformed to ASTM D-6751 standard. The calorific value of SME was very much comparable with mineral diesel. However, the Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP) of SME sample was 12 °C as compared to 9 °C of diesel. Despite of higher CFPP of SME, it may still be suitable for central and southern part of India on account of warmer climate.

In northern parts of India, it can easily be used with the addition of certain pour point depressant in winter season. Saturated vegetable oils have good oxidation stabilities and high Cetane ratings, as such animal fats were found to be suitable for biodiesel production with impressive results [24]. The oxidation stability of the SME was also within the acceptable limits of both D6751 and EN14112 standards. The density,

H.S. Pali et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 90 (2015) 146–153

viscosity, CFPP and flash point increased with increasing blending percentages while calorific value reduced marginally. There was no change in oxidation stability. These trends are quite similar to cotton seed oil [22]. The detailed fatty acids profile of the SME sample was determined using high precision gas chromatography equipment. Table 3 represents the fatty acids composition. The fatty acids composition indicated that the oil was rich in Stearic acid and Oleic acid as well as other saturated fatty acids were predominantly higher in the composition.

30.0

D100

SME10

SME20

SME30

SME40

25.0 20.0

BTE (%)

150

15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0

0.13

1.52

2.87

3.2. Engine performance

4.24

5.56

6.67

BMEP (bar) Fig. 5. Brake thermal efficiency vs brake mean effective pressure for various test fuels.

30 D100

28

BSEC (MJ/kWh)

Brake thermal efficiency is a vital engine performance parameter. It is the ratio of mechanical work obtained at the engine shaft and the gross energy of the injected fuel, which is the product of fuel heating value and mass flow rate [25]. The variation of the engine BTE obtained for different fuel blends with respect to brake mean effective pressure is shown in Fig. 5. Performance of CI engine is expected to vary with blending rates of biodiesel. [26]. It was observed that BTE for all the test fuels increased with increase in load. This was attributed to increased brake power and reduced wall heat loss at higher engine loads [26,27]. The BTE in general was found to decrease with increased volume fraction of SME in the blends. This is due to a number of factors like lower heating value, higher viscosity and density of the biodiesel resulting in poor atomization/vaporization, and increased fuel consumption. The results are similar to the findings of Chauhan et al. [26,27] and Canakci et al. [28]. SME20, SME30 and SME40 showed a reduction of 2.3%, 5.8% and 5.7% in full load BTE respectively as compared to the neat diesel operation. However, SME10 exhibited increase in BTE at full load. Comparative assessment of fuel consumption is an important parameter to explain the engine performance exhibited by various test fuels. In this context, brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) has been used as a conventional parameter. However, BSFC is not a reliable parameter when the calorific value and density of test fuels vary considerably [29]. In the present case, there is a variation of 2.63% in density and 3.8% in heating value indicating the requirement for another parameter for comparative assessment of fuel consumption. Therefore, BSEC has been considered a more reliable assessment for comparison of fuel consumption [29]. Fig. 6 shows the BSEC. The full load BSEC for SME10, SME20, SME30 and SME40 were 13.6 MJ/kW h, 14.3 MJ/kW h, 14.7 MJ/ kW h and 14.8 MJ/kW h respectively as compared to 13.9 MJ/ kW h in case of baseline data of diesel. The increased BSEC was attributed to the higher density of SME that led to higher discharge of fuel for the same displacement of the plunger in the fuel pump, thereby increasing the BSEC [30].

SME10

SME20

SME30

SME40

26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 1.52

2.87

4.24

5.56

6.67

BMEP (bar) Fig. 6. Brake specific energy consumption vs brake mean effective pressure for various test fuels.

3.3. Engine emissions Emissions from diesel engines contribute to environmental pollution considerably, particularly on fossil fuels. One of the advantages of renewable fuels such as biodiesel over its fossil fuel counterpart is its lower emissions. The subsequent section describes the emission characteristics of SME and its blends with diesel. Carbon monoxide emissions for various test fuels is shown in Fig. 7. Formation of CO during in-cylinder combustion in diesel engines is primarily attributed to lower air–fuel equivalence ratios of the combustible mixtures [14]. As load was increased, there was an increase in CO emission level at higher load due to rich mixture which results in incomplete combustion of fuel. It is worth relevant to mention that air–fuel mixing process is affected by the difficulty in atomization of biodiesel due to its higher viscosity resulting in locally rich mixtures of biodiesel and consequent higher CO

D100

SME10

SME20

SME30

SME40

0.45 0.4

Fatty acid

Molecular formula

Percentage (wt.%)

Lauric acid Palmitic acid Steric acid Oleic Linoleic acid Arachidic Saturated Unsaturated Total

C12:0 C16:0 C18:0 C18:1 C18:2 C20:0

0.58 3.69 47.04 43.98 1.2 3.5 54.81 45.18 99.99

CO (%)

0.35

Table 3 Fatty acids profile of Sal seed biodiesel.

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.13

1.52

2.87

4.24

5.56

6.67

BMEP (bar) Fig. 7. Emissions of carbon monoxide vs brake mean effective pressure for various test fuels.

151

H.S. Pali et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 90 (2015) 146–153 900

D100

800

SME10

SME20

SME30

SME40

NOx (ppm)

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

0.13

1.52

2.87

4.24

5.56

6.67

BMEP (bar) Fig. 9. Emissions of oxides of nitrogen vs brake mean effective pressure for various test fuels.

of dissolved oxygen in the biodiesel that expedites the Zeldovic mechanism. Similar results were obtained by Nabi et al. [39]. Increase in NOx emission is a big challenge for most of the biodiesel fuelled engines. Many promising methods like EGR, water emulsion, urea injection and cylinder wall cooling are explored worldwide to address this issue. However, this is beyond the scope of the present study. Fig. 10 shows the variation of smoke opacity for different test fuels at various loads. It may be observed that smoke level increased sharply with the increase in load for all the fuels. It was mainly due to the decreased air–fuel ratio at higher loads when larger volume of fuel is injected into the combustion chamber, much of which goes unburnt into the exhaust [40]. The reduction in smoke may be attributed to a number of factors such as higher oxygen content in SME that contributes towards complete fuel oxidation even at locally rich zones [41], lower C/H ratio and absence of aromatic compounds. Higher number of carbon atoms in a fuel molecule leads towards higher smoke and soot formations whereas higher oxygen and hydrogen atoms lead to lower smoke and soot [42,43]. The full load smoke opacity of the baseline diesel operation was found to be 81.9% which continually dropped to 68.0%, 63.59%, 52.5% and 45.1% for SME10, SME20, SME30 and SME40 test fuels respectively.

90.0

D100

SME10

SME20

SME30

SME40

80.0

SMOKE (%)

emissions particularly at lower engine loads [31]. However, the CO emissions at these loads were less than 0.05% and hence insignificant. At higher engine loads, the CO emissions of the blended fuels were significantly lower than baseline diesel operation. This is attributed to increased in-cylinder temperature at higher engine load and presence of oxygen in biodiesel fuel, which improves fuel combustion and consequently, reduces CO emissions [21]. Smoother burning is observed during biodiesel combustion [32]. Yuan [33] reported that the Sauter mean diameter of biodiesel blended fuels was greater than that of diesel, and spray was more concentrated. The macroscopic and microscopic spray properties of blended fuels containing 5%, 10% and 20% biodiesel were quite similar to diesel. The combustion of biodiesel presents severe operational challenges due to its higher viscosity and higher boiling point resulting in lower evaporation and combustion rates [34]. At full load, CO emissions of SME10, SME20, SME30 and SME40 were 26.19%, 35.7%, 42.8% and 47.61% which were lower than the baseline diesel operation. Similar results are reported by other researchers [26,35]. The emission of unburnt hydrocarbons in the engine exhaust at varying engine loads is shown in Fig. 8. Hydrocarbon emissions are primarily a result of engine configuration, fuel structure, combustion temperature, oxygen availability and residence time [36,37]. It was observed in the present study that UHC emissions were lower at partial load condition and increased at higher loads conditions due to relatively less oxygen available for the reaction when more fuel injected into the engine. It was also found that SME blended fuels exhibited lower UHC emissions as compared to baseline data of diesel. This reduction in emissions of UHC with increasing volume fraction of SME in the test fuel may be attributed to the combined effects of higher in-cylinder temperature, higher cetane rating and reduced ignition delay [38]. At full load condition, SME10, SME20, SME30 and SME40 showed 51 ppm, 44 ppm, 46 ppm and 48 ppm respectively as compared to 60 ppm in case of diesel baseline. Oxides of nitrogen popularly referred as NOx, are the critical diesel engine emissions of major concern owing to their toxicity. It mostly comprises of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), formed by ‘‘Zeldovic Mechanism’’. Combustion flame temperature, availability of oxygen and time for oxygen–nitrogen reaction are the major factors controlling NOx formation in diesel engines [30,31]. Fig. 9 shows the emissions of NOx for various test fuels at different loads. It may be observed that the emissions of NOx were found to increase with the volume fraction of the SME in the test fuels for the entire range of engine operation. At full load, SME10, SME20, SME30 and SME40 had NOx emissions of 612 ppm, 644 ppm, 689 ppm and 816 ppm as compared to 499 ppm for diesel. The increase in NOx emissions may be attributed towards higher adiabatic flame temperature and availability

70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.13

1.52

2.87

4.24

5.56

6.67

BMEP (bar) 65 60

D100

SME10

SME20

SME30

SME40

Fig. 10. Smoke opacity of vs brake mean effective pressure for various test fuels.

UHC (ppm)

55 50 45

Table 4 Performance and emission of D100 and SME blends at full load.

40 35 30 25

Sal methyl esters

Performance

Emission

BTE (%)

BSEC (MJ/kWh)

CO (%)

UHC (ppm)

NOx (ppm)

Smoke opacity (%)

D100 SME 10 SME 20 SME 30 SME 40

25.8 26.5 25.2 24.3 24.4

13.9 13.6 14.3 14.8 14.8

0.42 0.24 0.22 0.27 0.37

60 51 44 46 48

499 612 644 689 816

81.9 68.0 63.6 52.5 45.1

20 15 0.13

1.52

2.87

4.24

5.56

6.67

BMEP (bar) Fig. 8. Emissions of unburnt hydrocarbons vs brake mean effective pressure for various test fuels.

152

H.S. Pali et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 90 (2015) 146–153

Table 4 presents the comparison of the results of performance and emission characteristics obtained for different blends used in this work. 4. Conclusion In the present work, an exhaustive engine trial was carried to evaluate the performance and emission characteristics of different SME-diesel blends. The results suggest that BTE dropped marginally with the increase of SME volume fraction in the test fuel at full load as compared to the neat diesel operation. BSEC increased with the increase in SME percentage in the test fuel. At higher load conditions CO, UHC and smoke emissions were found to be lowered for all SME blends in comparison to neat diesel due to oxygenated nature of fuel. Moreover, at full load, CO emissions of varying blends of test fuels were 26.19%, 35.7%, 42.8% and 47.61% lower than the baseline diesel operation respectively. The NOx emissions were found to be increase for SME based fuel in comparison to neat diesel operation. From the experimental investigation it may be concluded that Sal seed biodiesel is a potential alternative to diesel fuel for use in unmodified agricultural diesel engines. Acknowledgments The authors express their gratitude to ‘‘Center for Advanced Studies and Research in Automotive Engineering, Delhi Technological University’’ for providing the requisite financial assistance and infrastructure to carry out the experimental work and the subsequent analyses.

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

References [1] Kumar N, Sharma PB. Jatropha curcus – a sustainable source for production of biodiesel. J Scient Indust Res 2005;64:883–9. [2] Bull SR. Renewable energy transportation technologies. Renew Energy 1996;9:1019–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0960-1481(96)88453-9. [3] Kumar N, Khare U. Fuelling an agriculture diesel engine with derivative of palm oil. SAE Paper No. 2004-28-0040; 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/200428-0039. [4] Kumar N, Dhuwe A. Use of macro-emulsion of vegetable oil in compression ignition engine. SAE Paper No. 2004-28-0039; 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/ 2004-28-0040. [5] Chauhan BS, Kumar N, Cho HM. Performance and emission studies on an agriculture engine on neat Jatropha oil. J Mech Sci Technol 2010;24(2):529–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12206-010-0101-5. [6] Fulton L, Howes T, Hardy J. Biofuels for transports an international perspective Paris. International Energy Agency (IEA); 2004. . [7] Mishra C, Kumar N, Sidharth Chauhan BS. Performance and emission studies of a compression ignition engine on blends of Calophyllum oil and diesel. Journal of Biofuels 2012;3:50–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/j.0976-3015.3.1.005. [8] World energy resources 2013 survey. World Energy Council. [9] Basic Statistics on Indian Petroleum & Natural Gas, 2011–12. Ministry of petroleum & natural gas, Government of India, New Delhi, Economic Division [taken 20.06.14]. [10] Lozada I, Islas J, Grande G. Environmental and economic feasibility of palm oil biodiesel in the Mexican transportation sector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:486–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.034. [11] Koh MY, Ghazi TIM. A review of biodiesel production from Jatropha curcas L oil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:2240–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2011.02.013. [12] Dhar A, Agarwal AK. Performance, emissions and combustion characteristics of Karanja biodiesel in a transportation engine. Fuel 2014;119:70–80. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.11.002. [13] Karnwal A, Hasan MM, Kumar N, Siddiquee AN, Khan ZA. Multi-response optimization of diesel engine performance parameters using thumba biodiesel–diesel blends by applying the taguchi method and grey relational analysis. Int J Autom Technol 2012;12(4):599–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s12239-011-0070-4. [14] Raheman H, Ghadge SV. Performance of compression ignition engine with mahua (Madhuca indica) biodiesel. Fuel 2007;86:2568–73. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.fuel.2007.02.019. [15] Sahoo PK, Das LM, Babu MKG, Arora P, Singh VP, Kumar NR, et al. Comparative evaluation of performance and emission characteristics of jatropha, karanja

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

and polanga based biodiesel as fuel in a tractor engine. Fuel 2009;88:1698–707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2009.02.015. Shehata MS. Emissions, performance and cylinder pressure of diesel engine fuelled by biodiesel fuel. Fuel 2013;112:513–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.fuel.2013.02.056. Muralidharan K, Vasudevan D, Sheeba KN. Performance, emission and combustion characteristics of biodiesel fuelled variable compression ratio engine. Energy 2011;36:5385–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011. 06.050. Mofijur M, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Atabani AE. Evaluation of biodiesel blending, engine performance and emissions characteristics of Jatropha curcas methyl ester: Malaysian perspective. Energy 2013;55:879–87. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.02.059. Vedaraman N, Puhan S, Nagarajan G, Ramabrahmam BV, Velappan KC. Methyl ester of Sal oil (Shorea robusta) as a substitute to diesel fuel—a study on its preparation, performance and emissions in direct injection diesel engine. Indust Crops Prod 2012;36:282–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2011. 09.003. Chopade G, Kulkarni KS, Kulkarni AD, Topare S. Solid heterogeneous catalysts for production of biodiesel from trans-esterification of triglycerides with methanol: a review. Acta Chim Pharmaceut Ind 2012;2:8–14. ISSN 2277– 288X. Pali HS, Kumar N, Mishra C. Some experimental studies on combustion, emission and performance characteristics of an agricultural diesel engine fueled with blends of Kusum oil methyl ester and diesel. SAE International paper no. 14SDP-0014/2014-01-1952; 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/201401-1952. Alhassan Y, Kumar N, Bugaje IM, Pali HS, Katchkar P. Co-solvents transesterification of cotton seed oil into biodiesel: effects of reaction conditions on quality of fatty acids methyl esters. Energy Convers Manage 2014;84:640–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.080. Ozsezen AN, Canacki M. Determination of performance and combustion characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with canola and waste palm oil methyl esters. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52:108–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecoman.2010.06.049. Sbihi HM, Nehdi IA, Tan CP, Al-Resayes SI. Production and characterization of biodiesel from Camelus dromedarius (Hachi) fat. Energy Convers Manage 2014;50–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.10.036. Lapuerta M, Jose OA, Ferna´ndez R. Effect of biodiesel fuels on diesel engine emissions. Progr Energy Combust Sci 2008;34:198–223. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.pecs.2007.07.001. Chauhan BS, Kumar N, Cho HM, Lim HC. A study on the performance and emission of a diesel engine fuelled with Karanja biodiesel and its blends. Energy 2013;56:1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.03.083. Chauhan BS, Kumar N, Cho HM. A study on the performance and emission of a diesel engine fuelled with Jatropha biodiesel oil and its blends. Energy 2012;37:616–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.10.043. Canakci M, Ozsezen AN, Arcaklioglu E, Erdil A. Prediction of performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with biodiesel produced from waste frying palm oil. Expert Syst Appl 2009;36:9268–80. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.12.005. Sahoo PK, Das LM, Babu MKG, Naik SN. Biodiesel development from high acid value polanga seed oil and performance evaluation in a CI engine. Fuel 2007;86:448–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.07.025. Dhar A, Kevin R, Agarwal AK. Production of biodiesel from high-FFA neem oil and its performance, emission and combustion characterization in a single cylinder DICI engine. Fuel Process Technol 2012;97:118–29. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.01.012. Last, R.J., Kruger, M., Durnholz, M., 1995. Emissions and performance characteristics of a 4-stroke, direct injected diesel engine fuelled with blends of biodiesel and low sulphur diesel fuel. SAE paper no. 950054, http:// dx.doi.org/10.4271/950054. Abbaszaadeh A, Ghobadian B, Omidhkhah RM, Najafi G. Current biodiesel production technologies: a comparative review. Energy Convers Manage 2012;63:138–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoman.2012.02.027. Gao Yuan, Deng Jun, Li Chunwang, Dang Fengling, Liao Zhuo, Wu Zhijun, et al. Experimental study of the spray characteristics of biodiesel based on inedible oil. Biotechnol Advan 2009;27:616–24. Reddy VM, Biswas P, Garg P, Kumar Sudarshan. Combustion characteristics of biodiesel fuel in high recirculation conditions. Fuel Process Technol 2014;118:310–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2013.10.004. Rakopoulos CD, Rakopoulos DC, Hountalas DT, Giakoumis EG, Andritsakis EC. Performance and emissions of bus engine using blends of diesel fuel with biodiesel of sunflower or cottonseed oils derived from Greek feedstock. Fuel 2008;87:147–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2007.04.011. Labeckas G, Slavinskas S. Performance and emission characteristics of a direct injection diesel engine operating on KDV synthetic diesel fuel. Energy Convers Manage 2013;66:173–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman. 2012.10.004. Kruczynski SW. Performance and emission of CI engine fuelled with camelina sativa oil. Energy Convers Manage 2013;65:1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.enconman.2012.06.022. Selvam DJP, Vadivel K. Performance and emission analysis of DI diesel engine fuelled with methyl esters of beef tallow and diesel blends. In: International conference on modelling optimization and computing. Proc Eng. 2012;38:342–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.06.043.

H.S. Pali et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 90 (2015) 146–153 [39] Nabi N, Akhter S, Shahadat MZ. Improvement of engine emissions with Transport Construction Foundation from Ministry of Transport of conventional diesel fuel and diesel–biodiesel blends. Bioresour Technol People’s Republic of China No. 200631826253 2006;97:372–8. [40] Gumus M, Kasifoglu S. Performance and emission evaluation of a compression ignition engine using a biodiesel (apricot seed kernel oil methyl ester) and its blends with diesel fuel. Biomass Bio-energy 2009;34:134–9. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.10.010.

153

[41] Agarwal AK. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal combustion engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2007;33:233–71. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2006.08.003. [42] Tree DR, Svensson KI. Soot processes in compression ignition engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2007;33:272–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2006.03.002. [43] Ushakov S, Valland H, Æsøy V. Combustion and emissions characteristics of fish oil fuel in a heavy-duty diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage 2013;65:228–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.08.009.