Fuel 216 (2018) 266–273

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Full Length Article

Experimental investigation of the effects of turkey rendering fat biodiesel on T

combustion, performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine
⁎
A. Osman Emiroğlua, Ahmet Keskinb, Mehmet Şenb,
a
Abant Izzet Baysal University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 14100 Bolu, Turkey
b
Abant Izzet Baysal University, Department of Automotive Technology, 14100 Bolu, Turkey

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

Keywords: In this study, turkey rendering fat biodiesel (TRFB) was produced by two-step reactions (esterification and
Biodiesel transesterification). Fatty acid ester content and yield in methyl ester were found 96.7% and 88.5% respectively.
Combustion TRFB was blended with diesel fuel (DF) at 10%, 20%, and 50% (v/v) proportion to obtain fuel blends named
Diesel engine TRFB10, TRFB20 and TRFB50, respectively. The effects of TRFB blends on the combustion, performance and
Emissions
exhaust emissions of a direct injection single cylinder diesel engine were systematically investigated under
Performance
different engine loads, at the constant engine speed of 2000 rpm. The results show that the maximum cylinder
Turkey rendering fat
pressure (CPmax) and maximum heat release rate (HRRmax) values of the TRFB blends were higher than those of
DF for all engine loads because of the low cetane number of the TRFB and the rapid burning of the fuel accu-
mulated in the combustion chamber during the long ignition delay. It was observed that the DF has a higher
exhaust gas temperature than the biodiesel blends at high loads because of the longer combustion duration of the
DF. The brake thermal efficiency (BTE) values of the TRFB blends were found to be lower than those of DF at all
loads. Since the heating value of the biodiesel is lower than that of DF, it was observed that the brake specific
fuel consumption (BSFC) values of TRFB blends are higher compared to those of DF. In addition, TRFB10,
TRFB20 and TRFB50 blends reduce smoke opacity approximately 20%, 25% and, 40%, respectively, and cause a
slight increase in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.

1. Introduction transesterification process. Following the transesterification reaction,

Investigations on alternative fuels are continuing extensively due to
the decline of oil reserves and the increase in oil costs as well as the
increase in environmental pollution. Biodiesel is considered the most
promising alternative fuel for diesel engines. Biodiesel containing ap-
proximately 10–15% oxygen by weight is a biodegradable, non-toxic
and renewable fuel and has similar combustion behavior to DF. For this
reason, it can be used in modern diesel engines directly or blended with
DF [1].
During the biodiesel production, oils or fats react with alcohols
(commonly ethyl or methyl alcohol). This chemical reaction which re-
quires alkali or acid catalysts is called as esterification (the reaction of
the free fatty acids with an alcohol to produce an ester of a fatty acid) or
transesterification (the reaction of the triglyceride with an alcohol to
produce a mixture of fatty acid alcohol ester). However, mostly alkaline
catalysts such as potassium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide are pre-
ferred. Because, in the case of using alkali catalysis, the transester-
ification process is much faster than the acid catalyzed
the glycerin, a by-product of the reaction, is separated from the sample
by centrifugation or using a precipitation tank.
The reaction temperature, type and amount of alcohols and cata-
lysts, free fatty acid (FFA) content, time and pressure, and water con-
tent in oil or fat are the main factors affecting the transesterification
reaction [2]. In selecting feedstock for biodiesel production, two crucial
factors must be taken into account, namely the amount of the raw
material and the cost of production [3]. Biodiesel production can be
carried out using different feedstock such as edible [4] or non-edible
vegetable oils [5], waste oils [6], poultry fats [7] and animal fats [8].
The main reason why the commercial application of biodiesel is limited
is high production cost. The raw material price accounts for 70–95% of
the total biodiesel cost [9]. Since biodiesel produced from expensive
edible oils cannot compete financially with DF, low-cost fatty feed-
stocks should be used in biodiesel production. In order to reduce the
production cost of ecologically acceptable and sustainable biodiesel
fuel, cheap waste oils, inedible oils, wastes of the edible oil refinery,
and waste animal oils can be used. Animal fat based biodiesel has

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sen_m@ibu.edu.tr (M. Şen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.12.026
Received 19 July 2017; Received in revised form 4 December 2017; Accepted 5 December 2017
Available online 09 December 2017
0016-2361/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.O. Emiroğlu et al. Fuel 216 (2018) 266–273

Nomenclature HC hydrocarbon
HRR heat release rate
ACPmax location of maximum cylinder pressure HRRmax maximum heat release rate
BSFC brake specific fuel consumption ID ignition delay
BTE brake thermal efficiency LHV lower heating value
CD combustion duration NOx nitrogen oxide
CO carbon monoxide SOC start of combustion
CPmax maximum cylinder pressure SOI start of injection
DF diesel fuel TRFB turkey rendering fat biodiesel
EGT exhaust gas temperature TRFB10 10% (v/v) biodiesel proportion
EOC end of combustion TRFB20 20% (v/v) biodiesel proportion
FFA free fatty acid TRFB50 50% (v/v) biodiesel proportion

sustainable feedstock sources and its fuel properties are very similar to Table 1
vegetable based biodiesel [10]. Main properties of the test engine.
Production of turkey meat in Turkey was 47 thousand tons in 2016
Items Specifications
[11]. Since turkey feathers contain approximately 6.7% fat, rendering
fats obtained from turkey slaughterhouses provide an important po- Model Lombardini 15 LD 350
tential for biodiesel production [12]. The turkey rendering fat is ob- Engine type Naturally-aspirated, air-cooled, DI diesel engine
tained by pressing the flour obtained as a result of boiling the wastes Cylinder number 1
Maximum power 7.5 HP/3600 rpm
(blood, feathers, meat particles, internal organs, feet, and heads) se- Maximum torque 16.6 Nm/2400 rpm
parated during cutting and processing of turkeys in the rendering fa- Displacement 349 cm3
cilities and it is cheaper compared to high-quality vegetable oils [13]. Compression ratio 20.3/1
However, low cost raw materials generally have high free fatty acid Bore × stroke 82 mm × 66 mm
Injection pump type QLC type
content. FFA and moisture content have a significant effect on the
Injection nozzle 0.22 × 4 holes × 160°
transesterification of glycerides with alcohol. The high FFA content Nozzle opening pressure 207 bar
(> 1% w/w) causes soap formation and the reaction makes it difficult Fuel delivery advance (°CA) 20 BTDC
to separate the products from each other, resulting in biodiesel pro- Intake valve open/close (°CA) 10 BTDC/42 ABDC
duction at low efficiency. Therefore, it is preferable to use a two-step
process as an alternative method, in the production of biodiesel from
they concluded that tallow methyl ester is an alternative fuel for diesel
raw materials having high FFA content [14].
and can help in controlling air pollution.
The researchers have recently conducted a number of studies on the
A number of studies on biodiesel production from various animal-
production of biodiesel from various animal fats and their use as fuel in
based raw materials and their effects on engine performance and ex-
diesel engines. Mata et al. [15] used poultry, lard, and tallow fats to
haust emissions have been mentioned above. However, to the best of
produce biodiesel by two-step process and found that at same operation
authors’ knowledge, there is no research in the literature, about the
conditions lard and tallow fats converted to biodiesel with a yield above
production of biodiesel from turkey rendering fat and the determination
90% while chicken fat remained at 77%. Rao et al. [16] investigated the
of its effects on the performance, emissions and combustion char-
emission and performance of single cylinder diesel engine fueled with
acteristics of diesel engines. In this experimental study, low cost turkey
chicken fat methyl ester and diesel blends under full load at 1500 rpm.
rendering fat obtained from a rendering facility of turkey slaughter-
They founded that BSFC and NOx emissions increase while BTE, exhaust
house was used as feedstocks for biodiesel production. Because the free
temperature, carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbon (HC) emissions
fatty acid content of the turkey rendering fat is over 1%, biodiesel
decrease as the amount of biodiesel increases. In another publication of
production is carried out in two-step process. The fuel properties of the
this working group [17], they analyzed the performance, combustion
produced methyl ester were detected by standard test methods and
and emission characteristics of the same engine under four different
compared with biodiesel standards. Later, the effects of the different
load at 1500 rpm. According to the results, depending on low heat value
TRFB blends on the combustion behavior, engine performance and
of the chicken biodiesel, as the amount of biodiesel in the mixture and
exhaust emissions of a direct-injection single-cylinder diesel engine
load increase the BTE and BSFC decrease. Increasing the percentage of
were systematically investigated and compared with those of DF.
the chicken biodiesel in the blends causes the low CO, HC and high NOx
due to the high oxygen content of the biodiesel. Also heat release rate
(HRR) and pressure rise of the chicken biodiesel are very similar to
2. Materials and methods
diesel fuel at all loads. Behçet [18] produced methyl esters from fish
and chicken fats and used these methyl esters in a single-cylinder diesel
2.1. Production of biodiesel
engine and compared with diesel fuel. The test results showed that the
brake power, torque values do not change greatly and CO and HC of
The turkey rendering fat was obtained from Bolca Hindi
methyl esters are lower than those resulting from diesel fuel. Gürü et al.
Slaughterhouse in Bolu, Turkey. It was filtered to remove solid residues
[19] studied the engine performance and exhaust emissions of 10%
and it was then heated at 110 °C for one hour in order to remove re-
chicken fat biodiesel and diesel blend and concluded that because of
sidual water. The two-step process was preferred because the content of
low lower heating value of biodiesel BSFC increases 5.2% while NOx
free fatty acid in the turkey rendering fat was high. In all stages of
increases by 5%, smoke emissions and CO decreases by 9% and 13%
production, the laboratory-scale devices were used and all chemicals
respectively. Oner and Altun [20] examined the effect of animal tallow
used in the biodiesel production were purchased from Merck and were
methyl ester and different proportion (5, 10 and 50%) diesel blends on
of analytical grade.
performance and emissions of a diesel engine. In this study the engine
In the first step of the biodiesel production, the solution was pre-
performance and the exhaust emissions (CO, NOx, and smoke opacity)
pared by using methanol as the alcohol and sulfuric acid as the catalyst,
of tallow methyl ester were found lower than those of diesel fuel. Thus
stirring at 40 °C for 30 min. The turkey rendering fat was placed into the

267
A.O. Emiroğlu et al. Fuel 216 (2018) 266–273

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the engine test rig.

Table 2 separation of the upper phase from the mixture, it was washed with
Characteristics of the exhaust gas analyzer and opacimeter. pure water four times at 65 °C to remove catalyst residues and heated
for one hour at 110 °C to remove excess water and alcohol in the
Parameters Range Accuracy Uncertainty (%)
mixture. Then the acid value of the sample was measured. After the first
NOx (ppm) 0–5000 1 ±1 step, the FFA ratio of the turkey rendering fat was found to be reduced
Smoke (1/m) 0–20 0.01 ±2 to 0.817%, which is sufficient to complete the reaction with the alkaline
catalyst. Following the first treatment at 63 °C for one hour with 2.5 wt
% sulfuric acid and methanol molar ratio of 40 wt%, the transester-
Table 3
ification reaction was performed at 63 °C for one hour. In the second
Properties of the turkey rendering fat.
step, the transesterification reaction with methanol molar ratio of 20 wt
Properties Unit Results % was completed with KOH catalyst. The catalyst amount was selected
3
to be 1% of the weight of the turkey rendering fat that was first treated.
Density kg/m 923
The glycerin was separated from the mixture by a separation funnel at
Kinematic viscosity mm2/s 32.30
Acid Value mgKOH/g 8.24 the end of the transesterification reaction. The ester was washed four
times with pure water at 65 °C. The methyl ester was then heated at
110 °C to remove excess alcohol and water.
Table 4 The yield of the ester is one of the most important parameters af-
Fatty acid composition of turkey rendering fat. fecting the biodiesel cost. The ester yield was calculated by dividing the
amount of ester obtained by the amount of pretreated fat used for
Fatty Acids Names Compositions (%)
transesterification [21]. The fuel properties of the TRFB were measured
C14:0 Myristic 0.50 and compared against the values specified in standards EN14214 and
C16:0 Palmitic 17.91 ASTM D6751.
C18:0 Stearic 6.12
C18:1n9t Elaidic 0.63
C18:1n9c Oleic 29.50
C18:2n6t Linolelaidic 0.03 2.2. Engine tests
C18:2n6c Linoleic 41.77
C18:3 Linolenic 3.17 The engine tests were performed to investigate the effect of TRFB
C20:0 Arachidic 0.15
addition to DF on combustion, performance and exhaust emissions of
C21:0 Henicosanoic 0.07
C22:0 Behenic 0.15 the diesel engine. For this purpose, TRFB blends were prepared by
blending with DF at 10%, 20%, and 50% (v/v) proportion, and called
TRFB10, TRFB20, and TRFB50 respectively. In the TRFB blends, no
flask equipped with condenser, thermometer and magnetic stirrer, and phase separation problem has been observed between biodiesel and
heated. When the temperature reached 63 °C, the methanol–sulfuric diesel fuel.
acid solution was added to fat and stirred for 1 h. The mixture was The tests were performed under the same operating conditions and
allowed to stand overnight to form the two phases. It was observed that variable engine loads of 2.5 Nm, 5 Nm, 7.5 Nm, and 10 Nm at the
the upper phase consisted of alcohol-acid-water mixture and the lower constant engine speed of 2000 rpm. The engine tests were carried on a
phase consisted mostly of unreacted fats and esterified fatty acids. After direct injection, air-cooled, naturally-aspirated, and single-cylinder

268
A.O. Emiroğlu et al. Fuel 216 (2018) 266–273

Table 5
The fuel properties of the turkey rendering fat biodiesel (TRFB).

Property Unit EN 14214 ASTM D6751–15 Test Method TRFB

Density (at 15 °C) kg/m3 860–900 – EN ISO 12185 885.8

Lower heating value MJ/kg – – ASTM D 240 40.68
Kinematic viscosity (at 40 °C) mm2/s 3.5–5.0 1.9–6.0 EN ISO 3104 4.49
Flash point °C ≥101 ≥130 EN ISO 3679 178.1
Cetane number – ≥51 ≥47 EN 5165 52.4
Ester content % (mass) ≥96.5 – EN 14103 96.7
Cold filter plugging pointa °C – – EN 116 0
Pour point °C – – ISO 3016 +4
Water content mg/kg ≤500 – EN ISO 12937 431
Acid value mg KOH/g ≤0.50 ≤0.50 EN 14104 0.49
Free glycerin % (mass) ≤0.02 ≤0.02 EN 14105 < 0.001
Monoglycerides % (mass) ≤0.70 – EN 14105 0.061
Diglycerides % (mass) ≤0.20 – EN 14105 0.0643
Triglycerides % (mass) ≤0.20 – EN 14105 0.0017
Total glycerin % (mass) ≤0.25 ≤0.24 EN 14105 0.0036
Methanol content % (mass) ≤0.20 ≤0.20 EN 14110 0.014
Group I metals (Na + K) mg/kg ≤5 ≤5 EN 14108 < 0.5
EN 14109
Group II metals (Ca + Mg) mg/kg ≤5 ≤5 EN 14538 <1
Total contamination mg/kg ≤24 – EN 12662 17.6
Iodine value g iodine/100 g ≤120 – EN 14111 91.67
Copper corrosion (3h, at 50 °C) Degree of corrosion No 1 max No 3 max EN ISO 2160 1A

a
This property changes according to the climate of the region.

Table 6 injector opening pressure determined as 207 bar. The ignition delay
Specification of test fuels. (ID) is the period interval from the SOI to the SOC.
BSFC and BTE are calculated with Eqs. (2) and (3):
Properties DF TRFB10 TRFB20 TRFB50
ṁ f ·106
Density (kg/m3) 831.5 837.1 842.7 857.4 BSFC =
Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) 2.40 2.63 2.89 3.58 Pe (2)
Lower heating value (MJ/kg) 43.20 42.95 42.67 41.94
Cetane number 58.8 57.2 56.9 55.3 3600
BTE = ·100
BSFC·LHV (3)

diesel engine. The main characteristics of this engine are summarized in
Table 1.
A Kemsan brand DC dynamometer, which produces 15 kW of power
at 3000 rpm, was used for loading the engine. The engine torque was
measured using a Kistler brand 4550A model torque meter. A Kistler
2614B model encoder was coupled to the crankshaft to determine the
crank angle, top dead center, and engine speed. The exhaust gas tem-
peratures were measured with a NiCr/Ni thermocouple. For measuring
the cylinder pressure, an A3 Kistler 6052C brand piezoelectric pressure
sensor and 5064 charge amplifier were used. A Kistler 4065B piezo-
resistive sensor and a 4665 amplifier were used to measure the fuel line
pressure. The cylinder pressure and the fuel line pressure data were
recorded at a crank angle of 0.1°. All signals were processed and re-
corded using a Kistler KiBox data acquisition system. The schematic
diagram of the engine test rig is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The engine was run for at least five minutes to reach steady-state
operating condition prior to each experimental measurement, and all
data received from KiBox was recalculated using averages of 100 cycles
to minimize cycle errors. The HRR and HRRmax, CPmax and its location
(ACPmax), start of combustion (SOC) and end of combustion (EOC) were
calculated by KiBox Cockpit software.
HRR was calculated with Eq. (1):
dQ k dV 1 dp
= p + V
dθ k−1 dθ k−1 dθ
In the calculation of HRR, wall heat losses were not included in the
calculation. In Eq. (1), dQ/dθ is heat release rate, P is cylinder pressure,
V is cylinder volume, and k is the polytrophic exponent. k was taken as
1.37 in this study. The SOC and the EOC correspond to 5% and 90% of
total heat release, respectively. The combustion duration (CD) is the
difference between SOC and EOC. The start of injection (SOI) is de-
scribed as the crank angle degree at which the fuel injector reaches the
where ṁ f is the fuel mass flow rate, LHV is the lower heating value of
the fuel, Pe is the brake power, which is calculated from engine brake
torque obtained from the torque meter.
Exhaust gas emissions were measured by a Horiba Mexa584L gas
analyzer and VLT 3000K smoke opacimeter. Table 2 shows the mea-
surement accuracy of these devices and relative uncertainty of NOx and
smoke opacity.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization of turkey rendering fat and biodiesel
Some properties of the turkey rendering fat obtained from Bolca
Hindi Slaughterhouse and filtered to remove solid residues were de-
termined and given in Table 3.
Table 4 shows the fatty acid composition of feedstock. Turkey ren-
dering fat contains 75.1% unsaturated fat and 24.9% saturated fat.
After the transesterification process, the yield of the methyl ester
was found 88.5%. The fuel properties of the produced TRFB and
EN14214 and ASTM D6751 standards are given in Table 5.
The ester may contain some unreacted material such as triglyceride,
residual alcohol, and residual catalyst after transesterification process.
The free and total glycerin amounts of biodiesel are two of the most
important parameters to determine whether the product is ready for
(1)
commercial applications. The monoglyceride and diglyceride formed as
intermediates in the transesterification process also give information
about the purity of the biodiesel [22]. The free and total glyceride
values of the biodiesel produced are very low and are in accordance
with EN14214 and ASTM-D6751 standards. The ester content of the
TRFB was 96.7% and complies with the standards. Viscosity which is
ability of the fuel to flow influences the quality of the combustion as it
affects the fuel atomization [23].

269
A.O. Emiroğlu et al.
Fig. 2. The main injection and combustion characteristics in terms of the crank angle at different engine loads.
Fig. 3. Variation of the exhaust gas temperature with respect to engine load at 2000 rpm.
The viscosity of the TRFB was 4.49 mm2/s in accordance with EN
14214 and ASTM D6751 biodiesel standards. The excess methanol used
in the biodiesel production process should be removed. Table 5 shows
that the content of methanol in TRFB is 0.014% and smaller than the
standards maximum value of 0.2%. The flash point is a parameter that
must be taken into consideration in the transport, storage, and safety of
fuels and flammable materials. The flash point of the obtained biodiesel
was 178.1 °C and met the ASTM and EN standards. The cold filter
plugging point (CFPP) is defined as the lowest temperature at which a
given volume of biodiesel flows completely under a vacuum through a
standardized filtration device within 60 s. The CFPP of the obtained
biodiesel is 0 °C. Therefore, the TRFB can be used in the summer
270
Fuel 216 (2018) 266–273
months without problems. But it is unacceptable to use in cold weather.
However, this value can be significantly reduced by using additives or
blending with diesel fuel [24]. Iodine value is a measure of the un-
saturation of a vegetable oil or animal fat. The iodine value of the
produced biodiesel is 91.67 and this value meets EN 14214 standard of
maximum 120 g iodine/100 g. The acid value of TRFB, which affects
fuel aging, is 0.49 mg KOH/g, which is below the maximum value of the
biodiesel standards, indicating that free fatty acid content of TRFB will
not cause operational problems such as corrosion and pump plugging
[25]. Water content in the fuel can promote microbial growth, cause
tank corrosion, and participate in the emulsion formation, as well as
cause hydrolysis or hydrolytic oxidation. The water content in the
biodiesel obtained was found to be 431 ppm which is lower than the
ASTM D6751 and EN 14214 biodiesel standards specifications.
Density is a fuel property that directly affects fuel atomization ef-
ficiency and many engine performance characteristics such as cetane
number and heating value. The density of TRFB was found to be
885.8 kg/cm3 at 15 °C within the standard limit values. The heating
value is a measure of the energy obtained from the fuel. The heating
value of the biodiesel produced was found to be 40.68 MJ/kg which is
within the biodiesel standard limits but slightly below diesel fuel. The
cetane number is a dimensionless concept regarding the ignition quality
of diesel fuel. It is known that the number of biodiesel cetane depends
on the feedstock used in production. The longer the fatty acid carbon
chains are, and the more saturated the molecules, the higher the cetane
number [26]. The cetane number was found to be 52.4, which complies
with the ASTM and EN biodiesel standards. All these analysis results
A.O. Emiroğlu et al. Fuel 216 (2018) 266–273

Fig. 4. Variations of cylinder pressure of the fuels according to the crank angle at dif-
Fig. 5. Variations of HRR of the fuels according to the crank angle at different engine
ferent engine loads.
loads.

demonstrate that the high-quality biodiesel fuel can be produced from

turkey rendering fat and can be used in modern diesel engines without
any problems and any modification.
The main properties of the test fuel blends which are important for
the interpretation of engine test results are shown in Table 6. The re-
sults obtained were compared with reference data obtained from DF.

3.2. Injection and combustion characteristics

The physical properties of fuels, such as viscosity, density, and

compressibility change the injection characteristics, which are highly
effective on combustion behavior, engine performance and exhaust
emissions. The change in the fuel injection timing changes the ignition
delay, cylinder pressure, and heat release rate. The graphs in Fig. 2 Fig. 6. Change of the BSFC with respect to engine load at 2000 rpm.
show the main injection and combustion characteristics of the fuels
such as start of injection, ignition delay, start of combustion,

271
A.O. Emiroğlu et al.
Fig. 7. Change of the BTE with respect to engine load at 2000 rpm.
Fig. 8. Change of the NOx emissions with respect to engine loads.
Fig. 9. Change of the smoke opacity with respect to engine loads.
combustion duration, and end of combustion in terms of the crank
angle at different engine loads. As shown in Fig. 2, biodiesel blends start
injecting earlier than DF due to the higher viscosity and density of the
biodiesel. The injection of TRFB50 starts earliest for all engine loads
because it has the highest viscosity. With the increase in engine load,
the injection starts slightly later for all fuels because the fuel line
pressure decreases.
With the help of HRR analysis, the keystones of the combustion
mechanism such as SOC and EOC positions can be easily determined.
The cetane number, viscosity, and oxygen content of fuels are very
effective on the SOC, which affects the combustion, performance and
emission characteristics of the compression ignition engine. The ID is
the difference between the SOI and the SOC. The cetane number of the
fuel is the most important parameter affecting the ignition delay and
the low cetane number causes an increase in the ID. In addition, the
high viscosity of biodiesel causes longer ignition delay, as it worsens
atomization and evaporation of fuel as well as the mixing of fuel and
air. As seen in Fig. 2, the ID of TRFB blends with lower cetane number
272
Fuel 216 (2018) 266–273
and higher viscosity is higher than DF at all engine loads. As the TRFB
ratio in the fuel blends increases, ignition delay increases and TRFB50
appears to have the longest ID at all loads. With the increase in the
ignition delay, it was observed that the fuel accumulated in the cylinder
was burned rapidly and the combustion duration of the TRFB blends
was shortened.
The exhaust gas temperature (EGT) is an indication of the effective
heat energy of a fuel and the high temperature indicates that the con-
version rate of the heat energy of the fuel to the useful work is low.
High EGT also causes an increase in BSFC and NOx emissions [27]. The
change of the exhaust gas temperature with respect to engine load is
shown in Fig. 3. It has been observed that the change in exhaust gas
temperatures of TRFB blends has a similar trend with the combustion
duration. Combustion duration and exhaust gas temperature increase
with the increasing the engine load for all fuels as shown in Figs. 2 and
3. As the increased engine load requires more fuel injection, it causes
longer combustion durations. Late combustion causes the fuel to burn
during the expansion stroke, where the contribution of the heat to en-
gine work is too low, which is why the most significant part of this heat
causes an increase in the exhaust temperature [28]. It is shown that the
DF has a higher exhaust gas temperature than the biodiesel blends at
high loads because of the longer combustion duration of the DF and also
due to the higher oxygen content of the TRFB blends. For example,
because the combustion duration of the DF is 2.5 °CA longer than
TRFB50 at 10 Nm, the exhaust gas temperature is 16 °C higher. How-
ever, at low loads, the exhaust gas temperatures are very close to each
other because of the small difference in combustion duration between
the DF and TRFB.
The combustion characteristics such as cylinder pressure and heat
release rate are related to the physical and chemical properties of the
fuel and are the most important parameters affecting engine perfor-
mance and exhaust emission. Fig. 4 shows the variations of cylinder
pressure and Fig. 5 shows the variations of heat release rate with re-
spect to the crank angle under different loads at 2000 rpm. The CPmax
and HRRmax values of the TRFB blends were found to be higher than
those of DF for all engine loads and increase further in proportion to the
increasing percentage of TRFB in the fuel blend because of the low
cetane number of the TRFB and the rapid burning of the fuel accu-
mulated in the combustion chamber during the long ignition delay.
TRFB50 appears to have the highest values of CPmax and HRRmax. In
addition to the higher CPmax values of the TRFB blends, Fig. 4 also
shows that their ACPmax locations are later than those of DF at all loads.
With the increase in engine load, since the amount of fuel injected into
the cylinder increases due to the increase in engine load, thus the cy-
linder pressure increases and reaches a peak value for all fuels with a
delay.
Initially, negative heat release rate is observed because of the eva-
poration of the fuel accumulated in the cylinder during the ignition
delay. However, it seems to be positive again in the combustion pro-
cess. Despite the lower LHV of the biodiesel, the HRRmax value of the
biodiesel blends is higher compared to the DF. One reason for this is the
rapid combustion of the fuel that accumulates in the cylinder during the
long ignition delay, which is caused by the low cetane number of bio-
diesel. The other reason is the high oxygen content of the biodiesel. As
shown in Fig. 5, HRRmax increases up to 7.5 Nm with increasing engine
load but decreases again at 10 Nm for all fuels. The reason for this re-
duction is the low premixed combustion phase and a higher diffusion
combustion phase at 10 Nm, thus HRRmax value reduces.
3.3. Engine performance
The change of BSFC of the fuels according to engine load at the
constant engine speed (2000 rpm) is shown in Fig. 6. The heating value
of fuels appears to play an important role in increasing or decreasing of
the BSFC. Since the heating value of the biodiesel is lower than DF, the
biodiesel blends have higher BSFC values. Because, when low heating
A.O. Emiroğlu et al.
value fuels such as biodiesel are used, more fuel must be injected to
achieve equal power output. As can be observed in Fig. 6, the BSFC
values are decreasing with increasing engine load, following a similar
trend for all fuels. It was also observed that DF with the highest heating
value had the lowest BSFC and TRFB50 blend had the highest BSFC
value for all engine loads.
The BTE of the test fuels with respect to the engine load at the
constant engine speed (2000 rpm) is shown in Fig. 7. It is evident that
BTE is inversely proportional to BSFC and biodiesel, which is an oxy-
genated fuel, increases thermal efficiency because of its better com-
bustion behavior. As shown in Fig. 7, DF has the highest BTE at all
engine loads compared to TRFB blends. Despite the high oxygen con-
tent of the TRFB blends, the reason for having a lower BTE compared to
the DF, is that the decrease in the heating value of the TRFB blends are
more effective on the brake thermal efficiency.
3.4. Emissions
In this section, the effects of test fuels on the NOx emissions and
smoke opacity according to engine load were examined. Thermal me-
chanism of the fuel, combustion temperature, oxygen content, and gas
residence time of the fuel are the most important factors affecting the
NOx formation. The higher oxygen content of the biodiesel increases the
combustion temperature and consequently causes the higher NOx
emissions. The change of the NOx emissions of the test fuels with ac-
cording to engine load is shown in Fig. 8. As can be concluded, the
addition of biodiesel to DF causes a slight increase in the NOx emissions
due to the low cetane number and high oxygen content of the biodiesel.
The low cetane number results in a longer ignition delay, which leads to
a higher cylinder pressure, higher combustion temperature and hence
higher NOx emissions due to the rapid combustion of the fuel accu-
mulated in the premixed combustion phase. Also, the higher viscosity
and density of TRFB leads to a larger droplet size, which in turn in-
creases NOx emissions. TRFB50 causes the greatest increase in NOx
emissions because of the lowest cetane number.
Smoke opacity occurs due to incomplete combustion of hydro-
carbons and carbon particles in the fuel. Because the oxygen content of
the fuel improves combustion, it is positively affecting the reduction of
smoke emissions. Fig. 9 indicates the change of the smoke opacity with
respect to engine load. It has been shown that the smoke emissions of
all fuels increase with the increase of the load. With the addition of the
TRFB to DF, smoke emissions are reduced at all engine loads because of
the high oxygen content and the lower C/H ratio of the TRFB. High
oxygen content improves combustion and reduces the formation of soot
in the exhaust gas. In addition, high density and viscosity worsen the
atomization and combustion of the fuel. As shown in Fig. 9, the TRFB50
blend causes a maximum decrease in smoke opacity at all loads. It is
followed by TRFB20, TRFB10 and DF respectively.
4. Conclusions
In this study, low cost and non-edible turkey rendering fat was
chosen as biodiesel raw material and biodiesel production was suc-
cessfully accomplished in two steps. The main properties of the pro-
duced fuel such as cetane number, density, and viscosity have been
found to meet EN 14214 and ASTM D6751 standards. The effects of
TRFB blends on the combustion, performance and exhaust emissions of
a direct injection single cylinder diesel engine were experimentally
investigated.
The results show that the CPmax and HRRmax values of the TRFB
blends are higher than those of DF due to the low cetane number of
TRFB and the rapid burning of the fuel accumulated in the combustion
chamber during the long ID and increase with the increase in the TRFB
ratio in the fuel blend. It was observed that the DF has a higher exhaust
gas temperature than the biodiesel blends at high loads because of the
longer combustion duration of the DF. The BTE values of the TRFB
273
Fuel 216 (2018) 266–273
blends were found to be lower than those of DF at all loads. Since the
heating value of the biodiesel is lower than that of DF, it was observed
that the BSFC values of TRFB blends are higher compared to DF. In
addition, TRFB blends reduce smoke opacity but cause a slight increase
in NOx emissions, which is due to the high oxygen content of the bio-
diesel.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Foundation of Scientific Research
Project of Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey, with the contact
number of project: 2014.18.03.758. The authors also thank Bolca Hindi
Company for the supply of the feedstock.
References
[1] Atabani AE, Silitonga AS, Badruddin IA, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH, Mekhilef S. A com-
prehensive review on biodiesel as an alternative energy resource and its characteristics.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2012;16:2070–93.
[2] Marchetti JM, Miguel VU, Errazu AF. Possible methods for biodiesel production.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2007;11:1300–11.
[3] Chakraborty R, Gupta AK, Chowdhury R. Conversion of slaughterhouse and poultry farm
animal fats and wastes to biodiesel: parametric sensitivity and fuel quality assessment.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;29:120–34.
[4] Saydut A, Erdogan S, Kafadar AB, Kaya C, Aydin F, Hamamci C. Process optimization for
production of biodiesel from hazelnut oil, sunflower oil and their hybrid feedstock. Fuel
2016;183:512–7.
[5] Patil PD, Deng S. Optimization of biodiesel production from edible and non-edible ve-
getable oils. Fuel 2009;88:1302–6.
[6] Valente OS, Pasa VMD, Belchior CRP, Sodré JR. Physical–chemical properties of waste
cooking oil biodiesel and castor oil biodiesel blends. Fuel 2011;90:1700–2.
[7] Tang H, Salley SO, Ng KYS. Fuel properties and precipitate formation at low temperature
in soy-, cottonseed-, and poultry fat-based biodiesel blends. Fuel 2008;87:3006–17.
[8] Cunha A, Feddern V, De PráC, Higarashi MM, de Abreu PG, Coldebella A. Synthesis and
characterization of ethylic biodiesel from animal fat wastes. Fuel 2013;105:228–34.
[9] Banković-Ilić IB, Stojković IJ, Stamenković OS, Veljkovic VB, Hung YT. Waste animal fats
as feedstocks for biodiesel production. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev.
2014;32:238–54.
[10] Goodrum JW, Geller DP, Adams TT. Rheological characterization of animal fats and their
mixtures with #2 fuel oil. Biomass Bioenergy 2003;24:249–56.
[11] Turkish Statistical Institute (TSI). Animal production statistics. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/
medas/?kn=80&locale=en; 2017 [accessed 01.10.16].
[12] Dale N. True metabolizable energy of feather meal. J Appl Poult Res 1992;1:331–4.
[13] Adewale P, Dumont MJ, Ngadi M. Recent trends of biodiesel production from animal fat
wastes and associated production techniques. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
2015;45:574–88.
[14] Çaylı G, Küsefoğlu S. Increased yields in biodiesel production from used cooking oils by a
two step process: comparison with one step process by using TGA. Fuel Process Technol
2008;89:118–22.
[15] Mata TM, Cardoso N, Ornelas M, Neves S, Caetano NS. Evaluation of two purification
methods of biodiesel from beef tallow, pork lard, and chicken fat. Energy Fuels
2011;25:4756–62.
[16] Rao KS, Ramakrishna A, Rao PV. Effect of fuel injection pressure on performance and
emission characteristics of DI-CI engine fueled with chicken fat biodiesel. Int J Therm
Technol 2013;3:53–9.
[17] Rao KS, Ramakrishna A, Sundara Siva Rao BSK. Experimental studies on the character-
istics of diesel engine with chicken fat methyl ester. Int J Automot Technol
2013;29:1114–22.
[18] Behçet R. Evaluation as fuel diesel engine of methyl esters derived from waste animal fats.
Energy Explor Exploit 2015;33:227–42.
[19] Gürü M, Koca A, Can Ö, Çinar C, Şahin F. Biodiesel production from waste chicken fat
based sources and evaluation with Mg based additive in a diesel engine. Renewable
Energy 2010;35:637–43.
[20] Oner C, Altun S. Biodiesel production from inedible animal tallow and an experimental
investigation of its use as alternative fuel in a direct injection diesel engine. Appl Energy
2009;86:2114–20.
[21] Alptekin E, Canakci M. Optimization of transesterification for methyl ester production
from chicken fat. Fuel 2011;90:2630–8.
[22] Çetinkaya M, Karaosmanoğlu F. Optimization of base-catalyzed transesterification reac-
tion of used cooking oil. Energy Fuel 2004;18:1888–95.
[23] Alptekin E, Canakci M. Characterization of the key fuel properties of methyl ester–diesel
fuel blends. Fuel 2009;88:75–80.
[24] Alptekin E, Canakci M, Sanli H. Evaluation of leather industry wastes as a feedstock for
biodiesel production. Fuel 2012;95:214–20.
[25] Predojević ZJ. The production of biodiesel from waste frying oils: a comparison of dif-
ferent purification steps. Fuel 2008;87:3522–8.
[26] Bajpai D, Tyagi VK. Biodiesel: source, production, composition, properties and its bene-
fits. J Oleo Sci 2006;55:487–502.
[27] Dhamodaran G, Krishnan R, Pochareddy YK, Pyarelal HM, Sivasubramanian H,
Ganeshram AK. A comparative study of combustion, emission, and performance char-
acteristics of rice-bran-, neem-, and cottonseed-oil biodiesels with varying degree of un-
saturation. Fuel 2017;187:296–305.
[28] Awad S, Loubar K, Tazerout M. Experimental investigation on the combustion, perfor-
mance and pollutant emissions of biodiesel from animal fat residues on a direct injection
diesel engine. Energy 2014;69:826–36.