International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering, ISSN(p): 2320-2092, ISSN(e): 2321-2071

Volume- 8, Issue-11, Nov.-2020, http://iraj.in

EXHAUST EMISSION ANALYSIS OF DIESEL ENGINE RUNNING ON
20% BLENDS OF MAHUA BIODIESEL
RAJESH

Research Scholar, I. K. Gujral Punjab Technical University, Kapurthala, India

E-mail: dudirajesh123@gmail.com

Abstract - Due to higher prices and environmental pollution of fossil fuel, there is the requirement of alternative fuel. In this
search, biodiesel is securing everyone’s consideration in recent years. But still, there are some issues with the use of
biodiesel in the diesel engine. The present paper deals with the investigation of use 20% blends of mahua biodiesel in a
diesel engine at different load conditions.. Results were calculated and then compared with diesel in the term of performance
parameters and composition of emission compounds. The results indicate that the carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbon
(HC), CO2 and smoke produced by M20 (mahua 20% blend) are lower than pure diesel (D100). The brake thermal efficiency
(BTE) was lowest with M20. The D100 exhibits the lowest brake specific fuel consumption. Also, M20 produce more NOx
than diesel. Also, EGT (exhaust gas temperature) is lower for M20 in comparison with D100.

Keywords - Biodiesel, Emission, Performance and Mahua

I. INTRODUCTION ratios have been reported by different researchers.

The dependency on the internal combustion engine is
increasing day by day. It seems almost impossible to
consider a world without combustion engines. Diesel
engines have high efficiency and proved to a perfect
choice for power production, but the diesel engines
cause high pollution. Also, the sources for petroleum-
based fuels are limited. These problems demand an
alternative fuel which can fulfil the desired
requirement regarding emission and performance. In
this search, biodiesel is acquiring everyone’s
attention. There are many potential oils present to
produce biodiesel. Since the use of edible vegetable
oil can lead to food problems, non-edible oils mahua
is used in the current work. The non-edible oils like
neem, jatropha and mahua are comfortably found at
different locations of the world and can be a
renewable source of fuel [1]. The production of
Mahua in India is 180 kT per year[2],[3]. The raw oil
not directly used in the engine because of its
viscosity[4]. A two-step transesterification process
can produce biodiesel which is comparable with D100
and easily consumed in CI engine without any
moderation. The most frequently used catalysts for
transesterification are KOH and NaOH [5]. The
factors affecting transesterification are temperature,
reaction time, reaction speed The physical properties
of mahua biodiesel are very much comparable with
pure diesel and its blends can run the diesel engine
easily[6]. There are many advance techniques for
biodiesel production but no manufacturing company
gives a warranty on engine running on 100 %
biodiesel. Use of 20 % blends M20 does not voids
warranty for 90% of medium and heavy trucks
vehicles[7]. The use of 100% biodiesel in the engine
can produce some serious problem regarding engine
life. In present work, 20 % blends of Mahua (M20)
have been taken. Effectiveness evaluation and
exhaust of diesel engine running at varying blending
Emissions like HC, CO2, CO, smoke opacity and BTE
are lower for biodiesel in comparison with diesel in
almost every research and the NOx emission was
found increased in comparison with D100 diesel[8]–
[17]. For example, an average of 20 % less CO
emission was obtained with 10% blend whereas 30.7
% less CO emission was obtained for 20 % blends
[18]. Average CO rate for diesel (D100) are 1.40 %
and 4.29 % higher than blends of 10 % and 20 %
jatropha biodiesel. The average HC emissions for
pure diesel were 7.38 % and 14.90% higher than
blends of 10 % and 20 % jatropha biodiesel. Also, the
NOx emissions for diesel were 1.61 % and 5.46 %
lower than blends of 10 % and 20 % jatropha
biodiesel[19]. Some other researchers also found
similar trends. For example, the BSFC, Brake power
and NO emissions increased by 7.05 %, 8.75% and
14.22 % respectively. Also, CO and HC emissions
decreased by 27.23% and 19.76% respectively[20]. In
one other research, the HC and CO reduced by 24.6
% and 12.9 % respectively for B20 (20% caster
biodiesel). Also, the NOx emission increased by
by11.8 % for B20[21]. The blending ratio also affects
emissions. On blending more than 50% the CO
emission is greater for Manilkara Zapota biodiesel
versus diesel[17]. On increasing the jatropha
concentration in blend the NOx and CO emission
increases and thermal efficiency decreases[22]. On
increasing compression ratio the CO and HC
emission decreases and the NOx increases[23].
II. METHODOLOGY
In the present work, the 20 % blends of Mahua was
used for experimental examination. The biodiesel
from Mahua oil was produced through the two-step
transesterification process. the first step involves
esterification by H2SO4 to reduce FFA in the raw oil.
In the next step, KOH was used for

Exhaust Emission Analysis of Diesel Engine Running on 20% Blends of Mahua Biodiesel

13
 International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering, ISSN(p): 2320-2092, ISSN(e): 2321-2071
Volume- 8, Issue-11, Nov.-2020, http://iraj.in
transesterification. Methanol is used as a solvent in 1500 rpm. Experiments were performed at 20 %
both steps. properties of biodiesels are presented in blending at different blending ratio. Engine details are
table-1. shown in table-2. A gas analyzer measures exhaust
The test was performed on a 4- stroke, Kirlosker emissions from the engine. The experimental setup is
made, single-cylinder diesel engine running with represented in figure-1.

Properties Mahua Biodiesel Diesel

Density 912 842
2
Kinematic Viscosity calculated @ 40°C (mm /s) 5.4 3.65
CV (KJ/kg) 35100 45200
Cloud Point in degree Celsius 6 2
Pour Point in degree Celsius 6 -2
Flash point in degree Celsius 194 69

Engine setup Kirloskar TV1

Engine 4-stroke diesel engine having a single cylinder
Power 5.2 KW
Speed 1500 rev/min
Bore diameter 87.5 mm
Swept volume, cc 661.45
Stroke length 110 mm
Length of Connecting rod 234 mm
Compression ratio 17.5
Table-2. Test rig Details

patterns were also noted by other research[24]. The

main reason for lower BTE with biodiesel is higher
viscosity, lower calorific value and insufficient
mixing with oxygen as compared to diesel. The BTE
increases on increasing load for M20 and D100. This
happens because at higher load there is an earlier
breakdown of the larger molecules into the small
molecules which leads to better combustion[25]. Both
the fuels show the almost same pattern at increasing
load. On average, M20 show 14% lowers BTE than
D100. At 100 % load conditions the BTE for M20 and
diesel is 23.9 and 27.8 % respectively.

Figure –1 Experimental setup

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Brake Thermal Efficiency

The BTE specifies how efficiently an engine can
convert the energy of the fuel to work output. Figure
2 depicts the brake thermal efficiency of M20 and
D100 at different load. The results show that the BTE
for D100 is higher than M20 for all loads. Similar
Figure -2 BTE vs load

Exhaust Emission Analysis of Diesel Engine Running on 20% Blends of Mahua Biodiesel

14
 International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering, ISSN(p): 2320-2092, ISSN(e): 2321-2071
Volume- 8, Issue-11, Nov.-2020, http://iraj.in
3.2 Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
The BSFC is fuel burned per unit power produced by
an engine. It is reverse of BTE. It is measured in
Kg/KWh. It can be useful in comparing engines of
different sizes. The variation of BSFC is shown in
figure-3 for M20 and diesel at varying load. The
BSFC is affected by properties like calorific value,
viscosity and density of fuel[26]. BSFC decreases
when the load is increased. This is because the
percentage enhancement in power is more as
compared to the enhancement in fuel consumption
when the load is increased. The BSFC for M20 is
higher than D100. The reason for higher BSFC for
M20 is lower calorific value, higher density and
lower viscosity as compared to D100. Similar patterns
were observed by other researchers [20]. On average
M20 shows 32.5% more BSFC than D100. At 100 %
loading BSFC for M20 and diesel are 0.29 and 0.19
respectively.
Figure-3 BSFC vs load
3.3 CO Emissions
The main factors affecting for the generation of
carbon monoxide is incomplete combustion and lack
of sufficient molecular O2 in a fuel[27]. Figure 4
compares CO emissions of M20 and diesel at
different loads. The figure revealed that the CO
emission produced by biodiesel blend M20 is lower
in comparison to D100. The CO emissions increases
when the load is increased.
Figure- 4 CO vs Load
Already performed researches pronounced the same
results and support this claim [20]. On average, the
M20 reduce CO emissions by 16.7% as compared to
Exhaust Emission Analysis of Diesel Engine Running on 20% Blends of Mahua Biodiesel
15
D100. At 100 % load, the CO emission is 0.06 and
0.06 in term of percentage volume for diesel and M20
respectively.
3.4 Hydrocarbon Emission
The main reason for HC emission is over-lean and
over-rich mixture[18]. The HC emission is reduced
when the blend percentage is increased[28]. Figure 5
portrayed the HC emission of the fuels samples at
different load conditions.
Figure-5 HC vs load
The biodiesel blend M20 emits lower HC emission in
comparison D100. This is due to incomplete
combustion of the biodiesel blend[29]. The HC
emission is higher at lower engine load. This is also
supported by other researchers[30]. At lower load, the
mixture is lean so there is high HC emission. At
100% load conditions, the HC emissions are 13 and
15 ppm for M20 and D100 respectively.
3.5 Nitric Oxide Emission
The production of NOx is affected by combustion
temperature and oxygen concentration in the cylinder
[15]. The change of NOx with load is depicted in
figure-6. The biodiesel blends M20 exhibits higher
NOx formation as compared to D100. These trends are
also verified by other researchers[9], [30]. The NOx
emission increases as load are increased for both the
fuels, but the gap is narrower from load 60% to 80%.
On average, the M20 show 19.2% higher NOx
emission than mineral diesel.
Figure-6 NOx vs load
 International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering, ISSN(p): 2320-2092, ISSN(e): 2321-2071
Volume- 8, Issue-11, Nov.-2020, http://iraj.in
3.6 Carbon dioxide emission
Figure-7 presents the percentage of CO2 emissions of
M20 and mineral diesel at different load. The M20
emit lower CO2 emissions as compared to D100. The
lower CO2 emission is due to sufficient oxygen
concentration in biodiesel as compared to D100[31].
On an average M20 produce 7.8% lower CO2
emissions than D100 respectively.
Figure-7 CO2 vs load
3.7 Exhaust gas temperature (EGT)
The change of EGT w.r.t. load for M20 and D100 is
depicted in figure-8. EGT show an increase when the
load is increased. Mineral diesel shows the highest
EGT than diesel for all load conditions. These trends
are also supported by other researchers[12][18][2].
The highest EGT was found 439°C and 450°C
respectively for M20 and D100 at full load conditions.
Figure-8 EGT vs load
3.8 Smoke
The change of smoke opacity for the engine at
different load for M20 and pure diesel are depicted in
figure-9. Smoke opacity increases as load are
increased for all three fuels. The blend M20 shows
less smoke opacity as compared to D100. The more
oxygen content in biodiesel is responsible for this. At
lower load, the gap is narrower but as the load is
increased the gap gets wider. At 100 % loading, the
values of smoke opacity for D100, and M20 are 79.2
and 61.1% respectively.
Exhaust Emission Analysis of Diesel Engine Running on 20% Blends of Mahua Biodiesel
16
Smoke Opacity vs Engine load
IV. CONCLUSION
In the present investigation, performance and
emissions of M20 and D100 have been evaluated in a
single-cylinder diesel engine. Conclusions of the
study are listed below:
 The increasing load (0 to 100%) tends to increase
the BTE. On average, the BTE for M20 is 14% less
than D100.
 The BSFC shows decrement with the increase in
load. The M20 shows the highest BSFC. On an
average M20 shows 32.5% more BSFC than
mineral diesel respectively.
 As compared to D100 the M20 produce 16.7% less
CO emissions respectively
 The biodiesel blends M20 exhibit lower HC
emission in comparison with D100. At 100% load
conditions, the HC emissions are 13 and 15 ppm
for M20 and D100 respectively.
 The biodiesel blend M20 produces more NOx
emissions than mineral diesel. On average, the M20
show 19.2% higher NOx emission than mineral
diesel.
 The mineral diesel produces more CO2 emissions as
compared to M20. On an average M20 produce
7.8% lower CO2 emissions than mineral diesel.
 Mineral diesel shows the higher EGT among than
M20 at all load conditions. The highest EGT was
found 439° C and 450° C respectively, for M20 and
mineral biodiesel at full load conditions.
REFERENCE
[1] P. K. Srivastava and M. Verma, ‘Methyl ester of karanja oil
as an alternative renewable source energy’, Fuel, vol. 87, no.
8–9, pp. 1673–1677, 2008.
[2] N. Saravanan, G. Nagarajan, and S. Puhan, ‘Experimental
investigation on a DI diesel engine fuelled with Madhuca
Indica ester and diesel blend’, Biomass and Bioenergy, vol.
34, no. 6, pp. 838–843, 2010.
[3] K. Tiwari, A. Kumar, and H. R. Ã, ‘Biodiesel production
from jatropha oil ( Jatropha curcas ) with high free fatty
acids : An optimized process’, vol. 31, pp. 569–575, 2007.
[4] P. Verma, G. Dwivedi, and M. P. Sharma, ‘Comprehensive
analysis on potential factors of ethanol in Karanja biodiesel
production and its kinetic studies’, Fuel, vol. 188, pp. 586–
594, 2017.
 International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering, ISSN(p): 2320-2092, ISSN(e): 2321-2071
Volume- 8, Issue-11, Nov.-2020, http://iraj.in
[5] G. Perumal and T. Rengasamy, ‘Environmental Effects
Production of biodiesel by transesterification of Senna
occidentalis nonedible oil’, vol. 7036, no. October, 2017.
[6] M. V. Kumar, A. V. Babu, and P. R. Kumar, ‘Experimental
investigation on mahua methyl ester blended with diesel fuel
in a compression ignition diesel engine’, Int. J. Ambient
Energy, DOI: 10.1080/01430750.2017.1392351, 2017.
[7] Experimental Investigations on Castor Biodiesel as an
Alternative Fuel for Single Cylinder Compression Ignition
Engine’, ‘Properties investigation and performance analysis
of a diesel engine fuelled with Jatropha, Soybean, Palm and
Cottonseed biodiesel using Ethanol as an additive’, Mater.
Today Proc., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 657–664, 2018.
[8] C. R. Seela, B. R. Sankar, D. Kishore, and M. V. S. Babu,
‘Experimental analysis on a DI diesel engine with cerium
oxide added Mahua Methyl Ester blends’, Int. J. Ambient
Energy, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–14, 2017.
[9] Dhar and A. K. Agarwal, ‘Performance, emissions and
combustion characteristics of Karanja biodiesel in a
transportation engine’, Fuel, vol. 119, pp. 70–80, 2014.
[10] Dhar and A. K. Agarwal, ‘Effect of Karanja biodiesel blends
on particulate emissions from a transportation engine’, Fuel,
vol. 141, pp. 154–163, 2015.
[11] K. Yadav, M. E. Khan, A. M. Dubey, and A. Pal,
‘Performance and emission characteristics of a transportation
diesel engine operated with non-edible vegetable oils
biodiesel’, Case Stud. Therm. Eng., vol. 8, pp. 236–244,
2016.
[12] S. Godiganur, C. H. Suryanarayana Murthy, and R. P. Reddy,
‘6BTA 5.9 G2-1 Cummins engine performance and emission
tests using methyl ester mahua (Madhuca indica) oil/diesel
blends’, Renew. Energy, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 2172–2177,
2009.
[13] S. Chauhan, N. Kumar, and H. M. Cho, ‘A study on the
performance and emission of a diesel engine fueled with
Jatropha biodiesel oil and its blends’, Energy, vol. 37, no. 1,
pp. 616–622, 2011.
[14] Nalgundwar, B. Paul, and S. Kumar, ‘Comparison of
performance and emissions characteristics of DI CI engine
fueled with dual biodiesel blends of palm and jatropha’,
FUEL, vol. 173, no. 2016, pp. 172–179, 2017.
[15] K. Agarwal and K. Rajamanoharan, ‘Experimental
investigations of performance and emissions of Karanja oil
and its blends in a single cylinder agricultural diesel engine’,
Appl. Energy, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 106–112, 2009.
[16] J. V Tirkey, A. Kumar, and S. K. Shukla, ‘Comparative
analysis of engine performance and emission characteristics
of different biodiesels’, vol. 7269, 2018.
[17] R. S. Kumar, K. Sureshkumar, and R. Velraj, ‘Combustion ,
performance and emission characteristics of an unmodi fi ed
diesel engine fueled with Manilkara Zapota Methyl Ester and
its diesel blends’, Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 139, no. September
2016, pp. 196–202, 2018.
[18] M. J. Abedin, H. H. Masjuki, M. A. Kalam, A. Sanjid, S. M.
A. Rahman, and I. M. R. Fattah, ‘Performance, emissions,
and heat losses of palm and jatropha biodiesel blends in a
diesel engine’, Ind. Crops Prod., vol. 59, pp. 96–104, 2014.
[19] M. Monirul et al., ‘Assessment of performance, emission and

Exhaust Emission Analysis of Diesel Engine Running on 20% Blends of Mahua Biodiesel
17
combustion characteristics of palm, jatropha and
Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel blends’, Fuel, vol. 181,
pp. 985–995, 2016.
[20] M. M. Rashed, M. A. Kalam, H. H. Masjuki, M. Mofijur, M.
G. Rasul, and N. W. M. Zulkifli, ‘Performance and emission
characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with palm, jatropha,
and moringa oil methyl ester’, Ind. Crops Prod., vol. 79, pp.
70–76, 2016.
[21] S. K. Mahla, A. Dhir, V. Singla, and P. Rosha,
‘Investigations on environmental emissions characteristics of
CI engine fuelled with castor biodiesel blends’, J. Environ.
Biol., vol. 39, pp. 353–357, 2018.
[22] De and R. S. Panua, ‘An experimental study on performance
and emission characteristics of vegetable oil blends with
diesel in a direct injection variable compression ignition
engine’, Procedia Eng., vol. 90, pp. 431–438, 2014.
[23] P. Rosha, S. Kumar, S. Kumar, H. Cho, B. Singh, and A.
Dhir, ‘Effect of compression ratio on combustion ,
performance , and emission characteristics of compression
ignition engine fueled with palm ( B20 ) biodiesel blend’,
Energy, vol. 178, pp. 676–684, 2019.
[24] Kathirvelu, S. Subramanian, and N. Govindan, ‘Emission
characteristics of biodiesel obtained from jatropha seeds and
fi sh wastes in a diesel engine’, Sustain. Environ. Res., vol.
27, no. 6, pp. 283–290, 2017.
[25] Deep, S. S. Sandhu, and S. Chander, ‘Experimental
Investigations on Castor Biodiesel as an Alternative Fuel for
Single Cylinder Compression Ignition Engine’, DOI
10.1002/ep, 2016.
[26] S. M. Palash, H. H. Masjuki, M. A. Kalam, A. E. Atabani, I.
M. Rizwanul Fattah, and A. Sanjid, ‘Biodiesel production,
characterization, diesel engine performance, and emission
characteristics of methyl esters from Aphanamixis
polystachya oil of Bangladesh’, Energy Convers. Manag.,
vol. 91, pp. 149–157, 2015.
[27] M. Mofijur, H. H. Masjuki, M. A. Kalam, A. E. Atabani, I.
M. R. Fattah, and H. M. Mobarak, ‘Comparative evaluation
of performance and emission characteristics of Moringa
oleifera and Palm oil based biodiesel in a diesel engine’, Ind.
Crop. Prod., vol. 53, pp. 78–84, 2014.
[28] H. K. Amarnath and P. Prabhakaran, ‘International Journal of
Green Energy A Study on the Thermal Performance and
Emissions of a Variable Compression Ratio Diesel Engine
Fuelled with Karanja Biodiesel and the Optimization of
Parameters Based on Experimental Data’, no. July 2013, pp.
37–41, 2011.
[29] Bae et al., ‘Comparative compression ignition engine
performance, combustion, and emission characteristics, and
trace metals in particulates from Waste cooking oil, Jatropha
and Karanja oil derived biodiesels’, Fuel, vol. 236, no. June
2018, pp. 1366–1376, 2018.
[30] P. qiang Tan, Z. yuan Hu, D. ming Lou, and Z. jun Li,
‘Exhaust emissions from a light-duty diesel engine with
Jatropha biodiesel fuel’, Energy, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 356–362,
2012.
[31] A. Abed, M. S. Gad, A. K. El Morsi, M. M. Sayed, and S. A.
Elyazeed, ‘Effect of biodiesel fuels on diesel engine
emissions’, Egypt. J. Pet., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 183–188, 2019.