Fuel 273 (2020) 117784

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Full Length Article

Optimizing cetane improver concentration in biodiesel-diesel blend via grey T

wolf optimizer algorithm
⁎
Erol Ileria, , Aslan Deniz Karaoglanb, Sener Akpinarc
a
National Defense University, Army NCO Vocational HE School, Department of Automotive Sciences, 10110 Balikesir, Turkey
b
Balikesir University, Department of Industrial Engineering, 10145 Balikesir, Turkey
c
Dokuz Eylul University, Department of Industrial Engineering, 35397 Izmir, Turkey

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Biodiesel and their blends with diesel have long been used as alternative fuels in diesel engines. In particular,
Biodiesel B20 is recommended in most studies since it reduces the exhaust emissions and provides satisfactory engine
Fuel additive torque close to diesel fuel. On the other hand, low cetane number of biodiesel leads to higher oxides of nitrogene
Diesel engine (NOx) emission when compared to those of the diesel fuel. Formation of NOx emissions has a strong correlation
Regression
with cetane number of fuels, which increases with the reduction of the cetane number. The current paper focuses
Grey wolf optimizer
on finding the optimum 2-ethylhexyl nitrate (EHN) (cetane improver) concentration and the engine speed for
20 vol% canola oil methyl ester and 80 vol% diesel fuel blend (B20). For that reason, experimental design is
created and the experiments have been done on TDI diesel engine at full load and different engine speed con-
ditions to be able to model the problem as an optimization problem by means of the regression modelling.
Accordingly, the developed model in consequence of the test results of the engine is optimized via the grey wolf
optimizer (GWO) algorithm taking into account of engine performance and emission parameters viz. brake
torque, brake power, brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC), brake thermal efficiency (BTE), NOx, and carbon
dioxide (CO2), to identify the rate of concentration of EHN in B20 and engine speed. Finally, confirmation tests
were employed to compare the output values of the concentration that were identified through the GWO al-
gorithm, and further statistical analyses indicate the consistency between the real experimental results and the
results obtained through the GWO algorithm. The optimum EHN concentration and engine speed was de-
termined as 743 mg/L and 3221 rpm respectively. Test results of engine performance indicated that brake power
and BSFC of optimum blend at 3221 rpm decreased while brake torque and BTE increased in comparison with
those of B20 without EHN. CO2 and NOx exhaust emissions decreased as 11.19% and 4.63% respectively.

1. Introduction
Due to the environmental pollution from exhaust emissions and the
limited availability of petroleum-based fuels in the near future, interest
in sustainable and renewable fuels tends to increase. Biodiesel is an
environmentally-friendly, renewable and biodegradable fuel produced
from vegetable oils and animal fats as an alternative diesel fuel via
transesterification process. According to the data obtained from many
short-term engine tests, biodiesel has proved to be an alternative fuel to
diesel fuel with its advantages such as producing brake torque and
power close to diesel fuel and reducing exhaust emissions. By using
biodiesel and their blends with diesel in diesel engines, carbon mon-
oxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbon (HC) and smoke opacity are sig-
nificantly reduced except NOx emissions [1–4]. Biodiesel consumption
is 43.560 million liters in 2019 and it is expected that the world yearly
biodiesel consumption will reach 44.280 million liters by 2025 [5]. It is
thought that increasing the use of biodiesel in diesel engine will in-
crease NOx emissions in the atmosphere, and this may constitute an
obstacle for the development of biodiesel market.
Considering the emission control systems of diesel engines, NOx
emission is the most important emission to be taken under control in
diesel engines. NOx formation in biodiesel combustion can be described
mainly by two mechanisms, i.e., thermal NOx mechanism and prompt
NOx mechanism [6]. The thermal NOx, the main reason for NOx emis-
sions, formation is predominantly effected by the amount of fuel eva-
porated before combustion, high combustion temperature above
1800 K, and the residence time of burnt gas at that temperature [7]. The
maximum combustion temperatures in the combustion chamber in-
crease with increasing ignition delay. The ignition delay, defined as the
time interval between spraying of the fuel from the injector and the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ilerierol@yahoo.com (E. Ileri), deniz@balikesir.edu.tr (A.D. Karaoglan), sener.akpinar@deu.edu.tr (S. Akpinar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117784
Received 23 January 2020; Received in revised form 21 March 2020; Accepted 2 April 2020
Available online 10 April 2020
0016-2361/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Ileri, et al.
Nomenclature
wr total percentage uncertainty
Y observed response from the test equipment

Y expected response estimated from the regression equation
PE prediction error between the observed and expected va-
lues of the response
β regression coefficients
ε residuals of the regression equation
R2 coefficient of determination for regression analysis
start of combustion which is measured as a sudden increase in pressure
in the combustion chamber [8].
Auto-ignition of fuels consists of physical processes involving the
formation of fuel vapors in the combustion chamber, and chemical
processes involving reactions with oxygen atoms in the air when it
reaches a certain temperature [9]. The cetane number, which is defined
as an indicator of the auto-ignitability of diesel fuel, is one of the most
important factors affecting the combustion process of diesel fuel. It is
stated in many studies that biodiesel increases NOx emissions due to its
low cetane number and the presence of oxygen in its chemical structure
[10–12]. There is a strong relationship between the cetane number and
the formation of NOx emissions, and increasing the cetane number of
fuels with various fuel additives is very effective in reducing NOx
emissions [13–16].
Cetane improvers are one of the most effective ways to increase
cetane number of fuels and to enhance auto-ignition capability re-
sulting in lower NOx emission in diesel engines. They provide free ra-
dicals into the combustion chamber, which results in accelerating the
oxidation process, and have the ability to reduce ignition delay to in-
crease combustion efficiency. EHN is known as commercial auto-igni-
tion enhancer additive in many studies since it is among the widely
used auto-ignition assisting additives which can offer the best behavior
in the most competitive way [17,18].
In order to improve the low auto-ignition properties of ethanol and
its blends with diesel fuel, Kuszewski [19] conducted a study in-
vestigating the effect of the 2-EHN additive on the autoignition prop-
erties of ethanol (15 vol%) – diesel fuel (85 vol%) blend. A constant
volume combustion chamber was used for seven fuel samples differing
in the mass fraction of the 2-EHN ranging from 0 to 10,000 ppm. He
observed that the ignition periods and combustion delay decrease with
the increase of 2-EHN fraction in the test blend. It is decleared that all
tested fuel samples meet the requirements of diesel fuel specified in
ASTM D975.
Pan et al. [18] investigated the effect of 0.5%, 1%, and 2% of EHN
addition on ignition delay time, combustion process of dimethyl car-
bonate-diesel blends. They reported that EHN enhances combustion
process and decrease ignition delay time as increasing cetane number.
Dimethyl carbonate-diesel blends with 0.5% EHN shows the best result
of combustion process similar to that of diesel.
McCormick et al. [20] reported that DTBP and EHN increase the
concentration of hydroxyl radicals and active products, which improves
the auto-ignition quality and cetane number of the fuel. Test studies
showed that decreasing of 2.03% and 2.77% NOx emission was
achieved with 0.5 vol% and 1 vol% EHN in B20 blends respectively.
Imdadul et al. [21] used 1000 and 2000 ppm EHN in biodiesel/n-
butanol/diesel mixtures in a diesel engine, and stated that the fuel
properties are enhanced as the EHN is added to biodiesel blends. Test
fuel blends with EHN exhibited lower emissions of NOx and smoke,
while CO and HC increased compared to diesel fuel. The addition of
EHN significantly improved BSFC and BTE compared to ternary blends
via improving the ignition characteristics. They stated that EHN in-
creases the cetane number and supports auto-ignition to reduce the
ignition delay as the combustion starts earlier. Similar results have been
2
Fuel 273 (2020) 117784
⎯ →
⎯→
A ,C coefficient vectors
⎯⎯⎯→
XP position vector of the prey
⎯→
⎯
X position vector of a grey wolf
→
a vector with components decreasing from 2 to 0 over the
course of iterations
r1, r2 random vectors in [0,1]
→
C vector which contains random values from the interval of
[0, 2]
reported by Ruina et al. [22] and Ileri [23].
Since experimental studies on blends of different fuel additive
concentrations under different working conditions to determine their
engine outputs are costly and time-consuming, the use of any other
useful method for estimating these properties is necessary [24]. A va-
luable technique that can eliminate the need for intense experimental
tests is the use of optimization techniques. Here, it must be underlined
that optimization techniques can tackle any problem if it is modelled as
an optimization problem. In this respect, EHN concentration determi-
nation in biodiesel-disel blend must be modelled as an optimization
problem firstly. For this purpose, we have designed an experimental
design and the experiments have been done on a TDI diesel engine at
full load and various engine speed conditions to be able to model the
problem as an optimization problem by means of the regression mod-
elling. Since therefore, one of the most suitable optimization techniques
could be use to tackle this modelled optimization problem. A number of
optimization techniques have been developed and used in the structural
optimization by many researchers [25–28]. Within the context of cur-
rent paper, we aimed at tackling the related problem via GWO algo-
rithm which is a new meta-heuristic algorithm inspired by the hunting
behaviors of the grey wolves, and being able to effectively tackle both
the optimization and engineering design problems [29–34]. Several
meta-heuristic algorithms–such as genetic algorithm, ant colony opti-
mization algorithm, particle swarm optimization algorithm, and artifi-
cial bee colony optimization algorithm-have been widely used; how-
ever, the current literature regarding the use of GWO algorithm to
engine performance and exhaust emissions of diesel engines is absent.
Considering the limited number of studies in the literature related to
the applications of GWO in internal combustion engines, the main goal
of present study is to find the optimum EHN concentration and engine
speed for B20 by using the GWO in order to improve the overall fuel
performance, and thus attaining to keep CN within acceptable limits
and an overall satisfactory engine performance and exhaust emission
parameters. The main technical advantage of optimization for de-
termining EHN concentration in B20 is improving the engine outputs
and emissions characteristics, especially NOx, and saving expenditure
for fuel additives. In line with these purposes, we could underline that
the novelty of this current paper is twofold; modelling the aforemen-
tioned engineering design problem as an unconstrained optimization
problem and realizing an optimization technique to tackle the problem
as effectively as possible.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Test fuels
Biodiesel was produced from canola, which is grown widely in
European countries, oil by means of transesterification process which
was catalyzed by NaOH and methanol. The reaction was conducted at
60 °C and 200 rpm (stirring rate) for 2 h. 3.5 g sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) catalyst per liter of canola oil and methanol to oil molar ratio of
5:1 were employed. In this current paper, reference fuel (B20), which is
the most preferred biodiesel fraction in scientific and industrial use, was
E. Ileri, et al. Fuel 273 (2020) 117784

selected. EHN was purchased from Sigma–Aldrich. CAS number,

B20 + 743 mg/L EHN

puirity, flash point and auto-ignition point of EHN is 27247-96-7, 97%,
76 °C and 130 °C respectively.
Electronic scale, Sartorius BP121S type with 0.1 mg precision, was
used for determining the quantity of EHN. For 1 L of B20, 0.5 g

> 200

0.849

51.24
(500 mg/L) and 1 g (1000 mg/L) of EHN were added and mixed with a

−10
−19

4.60
7.9

1a
mechanical stirrer to obtain two different test fuels blends. Fuel prop-

–
erties of the biodiesel, B20, B20 with 500, 1000 and 743 mg/L EHN are

B20 + 1000 mg/L EHN

shown in Table 1. As can be seen in Table 1, CNs increase with in-
creasing EHN concentrations in the test blends. Besides, oxidation sta-
bility increases with presence of EHN in the test blends. CNs of B20 with
1000 and 743 mg/L EHN are within acceptable limits according to EN
14214 as 58.78 and 51.24 respectively. EHN does not have any detri-

> 200

0.849

58.78
mental effects on fuel properties as can be seen in Table 1.

−10
−19

4.61
9.8

1a
–
B20 + 500 mg/L EHN
2.2. Test engine experimental Set-up and procedure

A Land Rover TDI 110 type water cooled diesel engine was used to
determine the engine output and exhaust emission parameters.
Technical specifications of the test engine are given in Table 2.

> 200

0.849

49.33
−10
−19

4.60
BT-190 hydraulic dynamometer was used to measure brake torque

1a
7
–
by means of 2500 N capacity load cell. The rotation frequency of the
cranckshaft was determined with an incremental type digital rotary

42,690
> 200

0.855

47.50
encoder. The fuel mass consumption was measured by a Siemens MASS

−10
−19

4.69
B20

6.9

1a
6000 Ex-d transmitter with a resolution of 1 wt%. The exhaust gas
temperature was determined with the K-type thermocouple sensor. IMR Biodiesel
2000, containing electrochemical and infrared sensor type integrated

39,920
with IMR 600 gas conditioning system, heated particle filters and K- > 200

0.893

47.20
−13

4.92
−3

1a
type thermocouple, heated gas sampling line and probe, was used to

–
determine exhaust gas emissions. The image of experimental setup is
Diesel Fuel

depicted in Fig. 1. 43,380

The engine speeds of constructed experimental design and con-
0.838

55.50
−15
−23
67.5

3.93
formation test are illustrated in Table 7 and 12 respectively. In ac-
1a
–
cordance with Land Rover TDI 110 catalogue, fuel injection pump,
injection advance (15 °CA), fuel injector pressures (200 bar) and valves
0.86–0.90
EN14214

were readjusted, and engine oil was changed before the experimental
≥120

1a-1b
3.5–5

≥ 51
≥6

tests. In order to reache the operating temperature and prevent cold-

–
–

start effects, the engine was first performed to diesel fuel and it was
loaded with dynamometer. Following that, test blends were operated in
Measurement Accuracy

diesel engine for the experiments. During the tests, engine performance
and emissions parameters were measured as the engine speed reached
steadystate with a maximum deviation of 10 rpm or ± 5%, based on
whichever is bigger. In order to control the cooling water of the engine,
± 0.001

PT-100 temperature sensor was added to cooling water tank. The

0.05%
± 0.1
± 0.1
± 0.1

0.2%

cooling water temperature was maintained at 85 °C during the engine

–
–

tests. Exhaust emission tests were carried out in accordance with TS ISO
8178-6 standard. To prevent the effect of atmospheric humidity and
ASTM D2500-91

ASTM D4052-91
Testing Methods

temperature variations on exhaust emissions, each emission test was

ASTM D93-94

ASTM D6749

ASTM D270
ASTM D445

ASTM D613
ASTM D130
EN 15,751

performed on the same day to limit day to day deviations in the ex-
perimental results. The test blends were used three times for the engine
Physical and chemical properties of the test fuels.

performance and exhaust emissions tests in order to increase the re-

liability of the test results. The standard deviations of experimental tests
results are given in Table 3.
mm2/s
g/cm3
kJ/kg

Propagation of errors methodology was used to calculate un-

Unit

°C
°C
°C

certainties for the engine output parameters. wr (total percentage un-

certainty) of calculated experimental values are shown in the Eq. (1):
Copper corrosion at 50 °C, 3 h
Oxidation stability at 110 °C
Kinematic viscosity at 40 °C

2 2 2 1 2
wr = ⎡ ⎛ ∂R ⎞ ⎛ ∂R ⎞ ⎛ ∂R ⎞ ⎤
⎢ ∂x1 w1 + ∂x2 w2 +⋯+ ∂x n wn ⎥
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Lower heating value

⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎦ (1)
Density at 15 °C

Cetane number

where R is a given function of the independent variables x1, x2 , ...,x n and

Cloud point
Flash point

Pour point

w1, w1, ...,wn are the uncertainties of the independent variables [35].
Property
Table 1

Table 4 indicates the accuracy and uncertainty values.

3
E. Ileri, et al. Fuel 273 (2020) 117784

Table 2 Table 4
The basic technical specifications of the test engine. Accuracies and uncertainty values.
Engine type Four-cycle compression ignition Measurements Accuracy Calculated quantity Uncertainty (%)

Made Land Rover Load ± 0.03% Engine torque 0.54%

Number of cylinder 4 Time ± 1% Engine power 0.47%
Cylinder bore (mm) 90.47 Speed ± 0.5% BSFC 1%
Stroke (mm) 97 Temperature ±1 K BTE 1.12%
Volume (cm3) 2495 NOx ± 3%
Compression ratio 19.5:1 CO2 ± 2%
Injection pump type Bosch rotary R509
Injection pressure (bar) 200
Maximum torque/speed (Nm/rpm) 235/2200
that is used in this study at the modelling phase:
Maximum power/speed (kW/rpm) 82/3800
Maximum speed (rpm) 4400 n n n
Yu = β0 + ∑ βi Xiu + ∑ βii Xiu2 + ∑ βij Xiu Xju + eu
i=1 i=1 i<j (2)

where Yu is the response, Xiu s are the factors. Terms β0 , βi , βii and βij
represent the regression coefficients and eu is the error for the uth ob-
servation [36]. The matrix notation for this model may be written as:

Y = βX + ε (3)

Y , X , and ε represent the output matrix, input matrix and the re-
siduals respectively. β matrix is composed of the coefficients of the
regression equation and calculated by using the Eq. (4) [36].

β = (X T X )−1 (X T Y ) (4)

Coefficient of determination (R2 ) is a statistical measure that defines

how close the data to the fitted regression function are. In other words,
R2 measures the strength of the relationship between the regression
model and the dependent variables on a convenient between the 0 –
100% scale as given by Eq. (5).

βT X T Y − nY 2
R2 =
Y T Y − nY 2 (5)

R2 is expected to be closer to 1 (100%). Then the significance of the

Fig. 1. The image of experimental setup.
2.3. Modelling and optimization
2.3.1. Regression modelling
In this study, regression models are calculated using experimental
results. By this way, it is aimed to determine the mathematical relations
between the factors (rate of concentration of EHN in B20 and engine
speed) and the responses (brake torque, brake power, BTE, BSFC, NOx
and CO2). Accordingly, the relations between the factors and the re-
sponse are modelled by the aid of regression, and then GWO algorithm
realized to optimize the response by using the generated regression
equations. Eq. (2) represents the general full quadratic regression model
regression model can be determined by using hypothesis test ['H0: model
is not significant (MSTreatments = MSE) (null hypothesis)' versus 'H1: model
is significant (MSTreatments > MSE) (alternative hypothesis)']. Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) is an appropriate method for this purpose. If the null
hypothesis (H0) of no difference in treatments mean is true, the ratio F0
is distributed as F (critical F value calculated form the F-Table) with
(m − 1) and (N − m ) degrees of freedom (m : number of estimated re-
gression coefficients; N : number of experiments). F0 is the test statistic
for the hypothesis of no difference in treatment means. However, if the
null hypothesis, is false, the expected value of MSTreatments is greater than
MSE . Therefore, under the alternative hypothesis, if F0 > Fα, m − 1, N − m ,
then this means the model is significant. Alternatively, we could use the
p-value approach for decision making. In the case that the p-value
(which can be obtained from the ANOVA analysis report of Minitab
statistical package) is less than the α (Type-I error), then this means the
model is significant. ANOVA table is given in Table 5[36].

Table 3
Standard deviations of experimental tests results.
EHN Engine Brake Standard Brake Standard BTE (%) Standard BSFC (g/ Standard NOx Standard CO2 (%) Standard
(mg/L) Speed Power Deviation Torque Deviation Deviation kWh) Deviation (ppm) Deviation Deviation
(rpm) (kW) (Nm)

0 1600 41.22 0.81 212 1.00 37.24 0.32 242.19 2.08 953 18.01 14 0.20
0 3000 73.08 0.80 221 1.00 36.39 0.28 247.85 1.89 848 11.24 13.1 0.10
0 4400 29.96 0.13 61 0.20 18.54 0.10 486.46 2.55 296 6.66 10.8 0.15
500 1600 39.7 0.35 219.2 0.95 37.1 0.31 243.1 2.07 916 16.65 14.3 0.26
500 3000 72.5 0.40 215.4 1.05 37.25 0.18 242.11 1.17 800 14.84 12.3 0.15
500 4400 30 0.25 60.4 0.30 19.95 0.18 451.97 4.08 280 7.55 9.2 0.10
1000 1600 38.8 0.25 217.5 0.61 36.92 0.33 244.28 2.20 908 15.95 13.9 0.20
1000 3000 72.9 0.40 215 1.00 37.64 0.29 239.59 1.83 805 11.06 11.7 0.10
1000 4400 30.1 0.10 60.8 0.26 19.6 0.02 470.66 2.41 270 7.09 9.2 0.15

4
E. Ileri, et al. Fuel 273 (2020) 117784

Table 5
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Table.
Source of Variation Degrees of freedom (df) Sum of Squares (SS) Mean Square (MS) F

Regression (between treatments) m−1 SSTreatments (SSTr ) MSTr = SSTr (m − 1) F0 = (MSTr MSE )
Residual Error (within treatments) N−m SS Error (SSE ) MSE = SSE (N − m)

2.3.2. Grey wolf optimizer algorithm prey to mathematically model the hunting behaviour of the grey wolves
Metaheuristic optimization techniques have become very popular for tackling an optimization problem. Therefore, the GWO algorithm
over the last two decades due to their capabilities of tackling most of must memorize the first three best solutions obtained so far to realize
the optimization problems successfully. Many metaheuristic algorithms them as guides for the rest of the solutions when updating their posi-
appeared in the related literature were inspired from the nature; tions during the discovery of the solution space of an optimization
especially swarm intelligence is the most popular source of approx- problem. This is the second step of the algorithm. The following for-
imation methods. The Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) algorithm which mulas below are proposed in this regard [30].
simulates the group behaviour of grey wolves (hunting, searching, and → → → →
encircling their prey) is invented by Mirjalili et al. [30] as a new swarm- D∝ = |C1. X∝ − X |
→ → → →
based metaheuristic algorithm, and it has been effectively implemented Dβ = |C2. Xβ − X |
to several optimization problem. In this paper, the GWO algorithm is → → → →
realized to optimize the problem on hand. If the regression models Dδ = |C3. Xδ − X | (10)
(those are calculated by Eqs. (1)–(4) above) are significant (it is de- → → → →
termined by using Eq. (5) and ANOVA above), then the GWO algorithm X1 = Xα − A1 . (Dα )
can be used to identify the optimum values of its input parameters (X). → → → →
X2 = Xβ − A2 . (Dβ )
In the nature, there are four types of grey wolfs in a wolf pack and
→ → → →
they are arranged in hierarchical order [30,37,38]. Their order of im- X3 = Xδ − A3 . (Dδ ) (11)
portance is alphas (α), betas (β), and omegas (ω). Another type of wolf,
who is not an alpha, beta or omega in the hierarcy of grey wolves, is ⎯→
⎯ ⎯→
⎯ ⎯→
⎯
⎯→
⎯ X + X2 + X3
delta (δ) or subordinate. Like omegas, deltas also have to submit alphas X (t + 1) = 1
3 (12)
and betas; however, they have control over the omegas. Scouts (re-
sponsible for watching), sentinels (protecting and guaranteeing the The grey wolves finish the hunt by attacking the prey (exploitation)
safety of the pack), elders (experienced wolves who used to be alpha or when it stops moving. In the third step of the algorithm, in order to
→
beta), hunters (providing food for the pack), and caretakers (re- mathematically model approaching the prey, the value of a is de-
⎯→
⎯
sponsible for caring for the weak, ill, and wounded wolves in the pack) creased. The fluctuation range of A – which is a random value from the
→ →
belong to this category [30]. The GWO algorithm mainly updates the interval [−a, a] – is also decreased by a . a is decreased from 2 to 0
⎯→
⎯
positions of the wolves during the discovery via the guidance of the over the course of iterations. If the random values of A are in [−1, 1],
information related to the current position of the wolves α, β and δ the wolves attack the prey [30].
[30,37]. In addition, the main steps of (i) encircling prey, (ii) hunting, Besides these three main steps, grey wolves also search with the
(iii) attacking prey (exploitation), and searching for prey (exploration) guidance of the positions of the alpha, beta, and delta. They diverge
are implemented. As can be obviously understood from the previous from each other at searching for prey. Furthermore, another divergence
⎯→
⎯
explanations, the solutions of an optimization problem must be iden- is observed at attacking to prey. In order to model divergence, A is
tified as alpha, beta, delta or omega when implementing the GWO al- utilized with random values. These values are greater than 1 or less
gorithm. Mirjalili et al. [30] originally specified the fittest solution as than −1. The aim is to oblige the search agent to diverge from the prey.
alpha, the second fittest solution as beta, third fittest solution as delta This emphasizes exploration and allows the GWO algorithm to search
and the rest of the solutions as omega. Due to these specificiations, the →
globally. C is the another component of the GWO algorithm that favors
GWO algorithm leads the hunting, namely the optimization, via alpha, exploration – which contains random values from the interval of [0,2].
beta and delta wolves, and therefore, the GWO algorithm make the This component provides random weights for prey in order to sto-
omegas to follow up these three fittest wolves. In the first step of the chastically emphasize (C > 1) or deemphasize (C < 1) the effect of prey
GWO algorithm – which is called hunting – grey wolves encircle prey in defining the distance. This assists the GWO algorithm to behave more
during the hunt. In order to mathematically model encircling behavior randomly throughout the discovery of the search space, favoring ex-
(first step of the algorithm) the following equations was proposed [30]: ploration and local optima avoidance. It may be suggested for the
⎯→
⎯ → ⎯⎯⎯→ ⎯→
⎯ reader to refer to [30] for more detailed information about the algo-
D = |C . XP (t ) − X (t )| (6)
rithm.
⎯→
⎯ ⎯⎯⎯→ ⎯→
⎯ ⎯→
⎯
X (t + 1) = XP (t ) − A . D (7)
3. Computational results
⎯→
⎯ → ⎯⎯⎯→
where A and C are coefficient vectors, XP is the position vector of the
⎯→
⎯ ⎯→
⎯ → This current paper aimed to optimize the responses; namely brake
prey, and X indicates the position vector of a grey wolf. A and C are
power, brake torque, BTE, BSFC, NOx and CO2. The factors having an
calculated as:
effect on these responses are determined as the fuel additive (EHN) and
⎯→
⎯ engine speed (n). In the first stage (i) the regression models are cal-
A = 2→ r1 − →
a.→ a (8)
culated for the responses, and in the second stage (ii) the GWO algo-
→ rithm is used to determine the optimum factor levels for these regres-
C = 2→
r2 (9)
sion models. Factor levels are given in Table 6.
→
where components of a are linearly decreased from 2 to 0 over the By using the factor levels given in Table 6, experimental design is
course of iterations and r1 and r2 are random vectors in [0,1]. The GWO constructed and the experiments are performed. The design of experi-
algorithmic phenomenon assumes the alpha, beta and delta wolves ments and observed responses are given in Table 7.
could provide significant information about the potential location of a The models have been derived by second-order regression from a

5
E. Ileri, et al. Fuel 273 (2020) 117784

Table 6 ANOVA. The results of ANOVA for the 95% confidence level are sum-
Factors list of actual and corresponding coded values of load and fuel additive. marized in Table 9.
Parameter Symbol Abbreviation Level R2 between 0 and 1 indicates that dependent variable is predictable
and an R2 of 1 means the dependent variable can be predicted without
−1 0 1 error from the independent variable. According to the data presented in
Table 8, it is clearly observed that the calculated regression models
Fuel Additive (mg/L) EHN X1 0 500 1000
Engine Speed (rpm) n X2 1600 3000 4400 have satisfactory R2 values (close to 100%), and factors, namely EHN
and n , are sufficient for modelling the mentioned responses. Table 9
presents the ANOVA results which indicate the significance of the es-
Table 7 timated regression models given in Eqs. (13–18). According to this
Design of experiments and observed responses. table, if the F > F − Critical or if the p-value is lower than alpha, the
null hypothesis is rejected, which means the regression model is sig-
Original Coded Brake Brake BTE BSFC NOx CO2
Factor Levels Factor Power Torque nificant and can be used for optimization.
Levels Regression equation seems to represent with a good accuracy for the
given range of design parameters. The performance of the fitted model
EHN n EHN n Yi1 Yi2 Yi3 Yi4 Yi5 Yi6
is presented in Table 10. According to this table, experimental results
1 0 1600 −1 −1 41.22 212 37.24 242.19 953 14 are the observed responses (Yi ), while minitab results are the expected
2 0 3000 −1 0 73.08 221 36.39 247.85 848 13.1 i ) calculated by using the fitted regression equation and PEi is
results (Y
3 0 4400 −1 1 29.96 61 18.54 486.46 296 10.8 the prediction error of the ith run, which is calculated by the formula
4 500 1600 0 −1 39.7 219.2 37.1 243.1 916 14.3 given in Eq. (19) below.
5 500 3000 0 0 72.5 215.4 37.25 242.11 800 12.3
6 500 4400 0 1 30 60.4 19.95 451.97 280 9.2
Yi − Yi ε
7 1000 1600 1 −1 38.8 217.5 36.92 244.28 908 13.9 PEi = = i
8 1000 3000 1 0 72.9 215 37.64 239.59 805 11.7 i
Y Yi (19)
9 1000 4400 1 1 30.1 60.8 19.6 470.66 270 9.2
Results presented in Table 10 indicate that the regression models
best fit the given observations with a prediction error (PE ) less than
small number of observations of the responses provided by experi- 0.08%. In the second stage of this study, the GWO algorithm is used to
mental set–up and the regression equations have been determined by optimize these regression equations. For this purpose, 30 search agents
using coded factor levels. In order to use GWO algorithm effectively, it have been employed in the algorithm, and the maximum number of
is recommended to use regression equations created with coded values iterations was set to 10000. The weights and bounds for the responses
[30]. Minitab-16 statistical package has been used for calculating the are summarized in Table 11. The confirmation test results for the test
regression model parameters R2 and ANOVA. Afterwards, the optimi- data set are presented in Table 12.
zation is performed by using the GWO algorithm which is coded in The results of confirmation test for optimum slot design parameters
MATLAB (R2016a), and then the results were obtained by running the indicate that the predictions performed by mathematical models (Y i )
coded GWO algorithm on a personal computer having Intel Core i5 − are closer to the experimental results (Yi ). According to these results, it
2.4 GHz processor and 4 GB RAM. Eqs. (13–18) shows the second-order can be concluded that the GWO algorithm has a good prediction per-
polynomial regression models (full quadratic model) for the experi- formance and gives accurate predictions.
mental design of coded units (which are calculated by using Eq. (2)). As can be seen in Table 12, it was observed that at 743 mg/L EHN in
B20 and 3221 rpm of engine speed, all the six parameters were optimal.
BrakePower
This means that used diesel engine in the current experiments, when
= 72.6422 − 0.41X1 − 4.9433X2 + 0.27671X12 − 37.8633X22 + 0.64X1 X2
fueled with B20 with 743 mg/L EHN, has to be operated with speed of
(13) 3221 rpm for obtaining optimum performance and emission outputs. At
this optimal input operating condition, the corresponding values for
BrakeTorque
response variables namely, brake power, brake torque, BTE, BSFC, NOx
= 217.4333 − 0.1167X1 − 77.75X2 − 0.45X12 − 78.65X22 − 1.425X1 X2 and CO2 emissions are 70.16 kW, 203.91 Nm, 35.24%, 255.70 g/kWh,
(14) 748.3 ppm and 11.23% respectively.

BTE = 37.3456 + 0.3317X1 − 8.867X2 − 0.3783X12 − 8.8683X22 + 0.345X1

X2 (15)

BSFC
= 236.8867 − 3.6617X1 + 113.2533X2 + 9.445X12 + 113.26X22 − 4.4725X1
X2 (16)

NOx
= 807.8889 − 19X1 − 321.83333x2 + 14.6667X12 − 213.8333X22 + 4.75X1
X2 (17)

CO2 = 12.2444 − 0.516X1 − 2.1667X2 + 0.1833X12 − 0.4667X22 − 0.375X1 X2

(18)
Surface plots for the binary combinations of the factors are given in
Figs. 2 – 7 in order to visualize the search spaces.
The R2 statistics (R2 , R2 -Prediction, R2 -Adjusted) associated with the
given models for the responses are calculated via MINITAB-16 and
summarized in Table 8. The significance of the model is also tested with Fig. 2. Response surface of brake power for coded values of n and EHN.

6
E. Ileri, et al. Fuel 273 (2020) 117784

Fig. 3. Response surface of brake torque for coded values of n and EHN. Fig. 6. Response surface of NOx for coded values of n and EHN.

Fig. 7. Response surface of CO2 for coded values of n and EHN.

Fig. 4. Response surface of BTE for coded values of n and EHN.

Table 8
Calculated R2 values for the regression equations.
Response R2 (%) R2 (predicted) (%) R2 (adj) (%)

Brake Power 99.99 99.85 99.97

Brake Torque 99.91 99.03 99.77
BTE 99.92 99.00 99.78
BSFC 99.71 96.80 99.24
NOx 99.97 99.75 99.92
CO2 98.25 78.79 95.34

Fig. 5. Response surface of BSFC for coded values of n and EHN.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, we have dealt with the problem of the determination
of the EHN concentration in biodiesel-diesel blend. This problem was
modelled as an optimization problem by means of regression modelling,
and following that, a GWO algorithm was designed to tackle the pro-
blem as effectively as possible. To be able to model the problem, some
preliminary experiments were also done on a turbocharged direct in-
jection (TDI) diesel engine at full load and various engine speed con-
ditions. The designed GWO algorithm aimed to find the optimum EHN
concentration and the engine speed for 20 vol% canola oil methyl ester
and 80 vol% diesel fuel blend to optimize the engine performance and
exhaust emissions; namely brake power, brake torque, BTE, BSFC, NOx
and CO2. Regression modelling provided us an empirical relationship;
and therefore, we were able to develop mathematical models, which
provided us to optimize the problem via the GWO algorithm. Optimum
factor levels for EHN and n are calculated as 743 mg/L and 3221 rpm
respectively. The results of the confirmation tests given in Table 12
confirmed these findings and the effectiveness of the designed GWO
algorithm. When the results obtained through the optimization,

7
E. Ileri, et al. Fuel 273 (2020) 117784

Table 9
ANOVA results for the mathematical models.
Response Source of the Variation df F F-Critical P-Value vs Alpha Result

Brake Power Regression 5 4777.71 > 9.01 0.000 < 0.05 Model Significant
Residual Error 3
Brake Torque Regression 5 688.28 > 9.01 0.000 < 0.05 Model Significant
Residual Error 3
BTE Regression 5 719.59 > 9.01 0.000 < 0.05 Model Significant
Residual Error 3
BSFC Regression 5 209.16 > 9.01 0.001 < 0.05 Model Significant
Residual Error 3
NOx Regression 5 2116.51 > 9.01 0.000 < 0.05 Model Significant
Residual Error 3
CO2 Regression 5 33.72 > 9.01 0.008 < 0.05 Model Significant
Residual Error 3

Table 10
Performance tests for the regression equation.
Run Coded Factor Levels Brake Power Brake Torque BTE

EHN n Yi i
Y PEi (%) Yi i
Y PEi (%) Yi i
Y PEi (%)

1 −1 −1 41.22 41.05 0.4 212 214.8 1.3 37.24 36.97 0.7

2 −1 0 73.08 73.33 0.3 221 217.1 1.8 36.39 36.64 0.7
3 −1 1 29.96 29.88 0.3 61 62.1 1.8 18.54 18.56 0.1
4 0 −1 39.7 39.72 0.1 219.2 216.5 1.2 37.1 37.34 0.6
5 0 0 72.5 72.64 0.2 215.4 217.4 0.9 37.25 37.35 0.3
6 0 1 30 29.84 0.6 60.4 61.0 1.0 19.95 19.62 1.7
7 1 −1 38.8 38.95 0.4 217.5 217.4 0.0 36.92 36.95 0.1
8 1 0 72.9 72.51 0.5 215 216.9 0.9 37.64 37.30 0.9
9 1 1 30.1 30.34 0.8 60.8 59.0 3.0 19.6 19.91 1.6

Run BSFC NOx CO2

Yi i
Y PEi (%) Yi i
Y PEi (%) Yi i
Y PEi (%)

1 242.19 245.53 1.4 953 954 0.1 14 14.3 1.9

2 247.85 249.99 0.9 848 842 0.8 13.1 12.9 1.2
3 486.46 480.98 1.1 296 301 1.7 10.8 10.7 1.1
4 243.1 236.89 2.6 916 916 0.0 14.3 13.9 2.5
5 242.11 236.89 2.2 800 808 1.0 12.3 12.2 0.5
6 451.97 463.40 2.5 280 272 2.9 9.2 9.6 4.3
7 244.28 247.15 1.2 908 907 0.1 13.9 14.0 0.6
8 239.59 242.67 1.3 805 804 0.2 11.7 11.9 1.8
9 470.66 464.71 1.3 270 273 1.0 9.2 8.9 3.3

Table 11 modelling the problem as an optimization problem and tackling it via

Weights and bounds for the responses. GWO algorithm, are compared with the experimental results, it can be
Response Unit Weight (%) Goal Lower Upper
obviously seen that the prediction errors are generally below 1%. These
findings expose the novelty, originality and success of the rationality of
Brake Power kW 5 Maximization 30 – this paper. At the end of this paper, we can conclude that this paper
Brake Torque Nm 5 Maximization 60.3 – succeeded to model and optimize the aforementioned problem effec-
BTE % 15 Maximization 22 –
BSFC g/kWh 30 Minimization – 377
tively since the GWO algorithm performed slightly better results for the
NOx ppm 40 Minimization – 930 responses focused within the context of this paper.
CO2 % 5 Minimization – 13.8
CRediT authorship contribution statement

Erol Ileri: Project administration, Investigation, Conceptualization,

Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing -

Table 12
Confirmations for the optimization results.
Response EHN (Coded) n (Coded) EHN (Uncoded) n (Uncoded) (Yi ) i )
GWO (Y P E (%)

Brake Power 0.4850 0.158 743 3221 70.1611 70.8312 0.9

Brake Torque 0.4850 0.158 743 3221 203.913 202.9138 0.5
BTE 0.4850 0.158 743 3221 35.2445 35.8223 1.6
BSFC 0.4850 0.158 743 3221 255.7004 257.7112 0.8
NOx 0.4850 0.158 743 3221 748.3 746.3 0.3
CO2 0.4850 0.158 743 3221 11.2344 11.6543 3.6

8
E. Ileri, et al.
original draft, Writing - review & editing. Aslan Deniz Karaoglan:
Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Visualization,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Sener Akpinar:
Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Singh M, Sandhu SS. Performance, emission and combustion characteristics of
multi-cylinder CRDI engine fueled with argemone biodiesel/diesel blends. Fuels
2020;265:117024.
[2] Altın R, Çetinkaya S, Yücesu HS. The potential of using vegetable oil fuels as fuel for
diesel engines. Energy Convers Manage 2001;42:529–38.
[3] Koçak MS, Ileri E, Utlu Z. Experimental study of emission parameters of biodiesel
fuels obtained from canola, hazelnut, and waste cooking oils. Energy Fuel
2007;21:3622–6.
[4] Attia AMA, Nour M, Nada SA. Study of Egyptian castor biodiesel-diesel fuel prop-
erties and diesel engine performance for a wide range of blending ratios and op-
erating conditions for the sake of the optimal blending ratio. Energy Convers
Manage 2018;174:364–77.
[5] OECD-FAO. Agricultural Outlook 2019-2028. http://www.fao.org/3/ca4076en/
ca4076en.pdf; 2019 [accessed November 2019].
[6] Varatharajan K, Cheralathan M, Velraj R. Mitigation of NOx emissions from a ja-
tropha biodiesel fuelled DI diesel engine using antioxidant additives. Fuel
2011;90:2721–5.
[7] Qi DH, Bae C, Feng YM, Jia CC, Bian YZ. Combustion and emission characteristics of
a direct injection compression ignition engine using rapeseed oil based micro-
emulsions. Fuel 2013;107:570–7.
[8] Ileri E, Koçar G. Experimental investigation of the effect of fuel injection advance on
engine performance and exhaust emission parameters using canola oil methyl ester
in a turbocharged direct-injection diesel engine. Energy Fuel 2009;23:5191–8.
[9] Zheng Ziliang, Badawy Tamer, Henein Naeim, Sattler Eric. Investigation of physical
and chemical delay periods of different fuels in the ignition quality tester. J Eng Gas
Turbines Power 2013;135:061501–61511.
[10] Usta N, Öztürk E, Can Ö, Conkur ES, Nas S, Çon AH, et al. Combustion of biodiesel
fuel produced from hazelnut soapstock/waste sunflower oil mixture in a diesel
engine. Energy Convers Manage 2005;46:741–55.
[11] Ileri E, Atmanli A, Yilmaz N. Comparative analyses of n-butanol–rapeseed oil–diesel
blend with biodiesel, diesel and biodiesel-diesel fuels in a turbocharged direct diesel
engine. J Energy Enst 2016;89:586–93.
[12] Habibullah M, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Rizwanul Fattah IM, Ashraful AM, Mobarak
HM. Biodiesel production and performance evaluation of coconut, palm and their
combined blend with diesel in a single-cylinder diesel engine. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;87:250–7.
[13] Ileri E, Kocar G. Experimental investigation of the effect of antioxidant additives on
NOx emissions of a diesel engine using biodiesel. Fuel 2014;125:44–9.
[14] Mishraa S, Chauhana A, Mishra KB. Role of binary and ternary blends of WCO
biodiesel one mission reduction in diesel engine. Fuel 2020;262:116604.
[15] Atmanlı A, Yüksel B, Ileri E. Experimental investigation of the effect of die-
sel–cotton oil–n-butanol ternary blends on phase stability, engine performance and
exhaust emission parameters in a diesel engine. Fuel 2013;109:503–11.
[16] Kumar BR, Saravanan S. Partially premixed low temperature combustion using
dimethyl carbonate (DMC) in a DI diesel engine for favorable smoke/NOx emis-
sions. Fuel 2016;180:396–406.
[17] Suppes G, Rui Y, Rome A, Chen Z. Cetane-improver analysis and impact ofactivation
Fuel 273 (2020) 117784
energy on the relative performance of 2-ethylhexyl nitrate andtetraethylene glycol
dinitrate. Ind Eng Chem Res 1997;36:4397–404.
[18] Pan Mingzhang, Qian Weiwei, Huang Rong, Tong Chengzheng, Huang Haozhong,
Leilei Xu, et al. Effects of dimethyl carbonate and 2-ethylhexyl nitrate on energy
distribution, combustion and emissions in a diesel engine under differentload
conditions. Energy Convers Manage 2019;199:111985.
[19] Kuszewski H. Effect of adding 2-ethylhexyl nitrate cetane improver on the auto-
ignitionproperties of ethanol–diesel fuel blend–Investigation at various ambientgas
temperatures. Fuel 2018;224:57–67.
[20] RL McCormick, JR Alvarez, MS Graboski, NOx solutions for biodiesel. NREL/SR-
510-31465; 2003.
[21] Imdadul HK, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Zulkifli NWM, Kamruzzaman M, Shahin MM,
et al. Evaluation of oxygenatedn-butanol-biodiesel blends along with ethylhexyl
nitrate as cetane improver on diesel engine attributes. J Cleaner Prod
2017;141:928–39.
[22] Ruina Li, Zhong Wang, Peiyong Ni, Yang Zhao, Mingdi Li, Lilin Li. Effects of cetane
number improvers on the performance of diesel engine fuelled with methanol/
biodiesel blend. Fuel 2014;128:180–7.
[23] Ileri E. Experimental study of 2-ethylhexyl nitrate effects on engine performance
and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with n-butanol or 1-pentanol
diesel–sunflower oil blends. Energy Convers Manage 2016;118:320–30.
[24] Molkdaragh RR, Jafarmadar S, Khalilaria Sh, Soukht Saraee H. Prediction of the
performance and exhaust emissions of a compression ignition engine using a wa-
velet neural network with a stochastic gradient algorithm. Energy
2018;142:1128–38.
[25] Atmanlı A, Yüksel B, Ileri E, Karaoglan AD. Response surface methodology based
optimization of diesel–n-butanol–cotton oil ternary blend ratios to improve engine
performance and exhaust emission characteristics. Energy Convers Manage
2015:383–94.
[26] Lopeza I, Pinzi S, Leiva-Candia D, Dorado MP. Multiple response optimization to
reduce exhaust emissions and fuelconsumption of a diesel engine fueled with olive
pomace oil methylester/diesel fuel blends. Energy 2016;117:398–404.
[27] Och SH, Moura LM, Mariani VC, Coelho LS, Velásquez JA, Domingues E. Volumetric
efficiency optimization of a single-cylinder D.I. diesel engine using differential
evolution algorithm. Appl Thermal Eng 2016;108:660–9.
[28] Atmanlı A, Ileri E, Yilmaz N. Optimization of diesel–butanol–vegetable oil blend
ratios based on engine operating parameters. Energy 2016;96:569–80.
[29] Konstantinova SV, Khamidovab UK, Sofronova EA. A novel hybrid method of global
optimization based on the grey wolf optimizer and the bees algorithm. Procedia
Comput Sci 2019;150:471–7.
[30] Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A. Grey wolf optimizer. Adv Eng Softw
2014;69:46–61.
[31] Niu P, Niu S, Liu N, Chang L. The defect of the Grey Wolf optimization algorithm
and its verification method. Knowl-Based Syst 2019;171:37–43.
[32] Gujarathia PK, Shah VA, Lokhande MM. Grey wolf algorithm for multidimensional
engine optimization of converted plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. Transport Res Part
D: Transport Environ. 2018;63:632–48.
[33] Long W, Cai S, Jiao J, Xu M, Wu T. A new hybrid algorithm based on grey wolf
optimizer and cuckoo search for parameter extraction of solar photovoltaic models.
Energy Convers Manage 2020;203:112243.
[34] Yang B, Zhang X, Yu T, Shu H, Fang Z. Grouped grey wolf optimizer for maximum
power point tracking of doubly-fed induction generator based wind turbine. Energy
Convers Manage 2017;133:427–43.
[35] Holman JP. Experimentals methods for engineers. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
Companies; 2001.
[36] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. 8th ed. New Jersey-NJ, USA:
John Wiley & Sons Inc:; 2013.
[37] Ma X, Mei X, Wu W, Wu X, Zeng B. A novel fractional time delayed grey model with
Grey Wolf Optimizer and its applications in forecasting the natural gas and coal
consumption in Chongqing China. Energy 2019;178:487–507.
[38] Abdel-Basset M, El-Shahat D, El-henawy I, Albuquerque VHC, Mirjalili S. A new
fusion of grey wolf optimizer algorithm with a two-phase mutation for feature se-
lection. Expert System Appl 2020;2020(139):112824https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2019.112824.