CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 BASELINE FIXATION

Experiments were conducted initially using diesel as base fuel. Various performance,
combustion and emission tests were carried out. After steady state condition readings were noted for
diesel at different loading conditions. Experiments were repeated at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% load
until same values are obtained and finally graphs were plotted corresponding to various loads as shown
in Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3. Peak pressure and peak heat release graphs were plotted from
full load data. Combustion characteristics and various emission graphs were also plotted. These results
were fixed as base value and comparative studies were done with SLO results. The enhanced
properties of diesel exhibited better result outcome.

5.1.1 Performance Characteristics

BSFC and BTE of diesel fuel operated in CI engine is illustrated in Figures 5.1a and 5.1b. These
are inverse profile and indicates fuel consumption and thermal energy utilization of fuel (Chattopadhyay
& Sen 2013). At low load, BSFC of diesel is 0.58438 kg/kWh followed by 0.29711 kg/kWh and 0.23239
kg/kWh at full load condition. Brake thermal efficiency of diesel fuel is function of brake power and
indicated power.

35
a.

b.

Figure 5.1 Performance characteristics of diesel fuel in CI engine

36
 This indicates effective heat energy utilization of fuel. Incase of diesel engine more amount of
heat is wasted in cylinder wall for cooling and exhaust gas. At low load BTE of diesel is 15 % followed
by 25 % at part load and 33 % at full load condition.

5.1.2 Combustion Characteristics

Combustion characteristics of Diesel fuel is determined using Pressure vs crank angle and
heat release rate plot. Figure 5.2a, 5.2b, 5.2c represents pressure vs crank angle, heat release rate and
cumulative heat release rate of diesel fuel. Peak cylinder pressure of diesel obtained is 72 bar and peak
heat release rate around 90 J/°CA.

a. b.

c.

Figure 5.2Combustion characteristics of diesel fuel in CI engine

37
 Fuel accumulated during delay period burns rapidly giving rise to maximum peak pressure and
peak heat release rate were more amount of heat is liberated. During second peak ie., controlled
combustion, maximum heat release rate obtained is around 35 J/ °CA followed by after burning curve.
The ignition delay characteristics of diesel fuel results in improved physical and chemical properties
which holds for earlier pressure rise and liberating heat energy stored in fuel at first peak of HRR
followed by controlled combustion and after burning at which accumulated fuels liberating remaining
heat energy from fuel.

5.1.3 Emission Characteristics

Diesel engine operate with non-homogeneity air fuel mixture causing more rich and lean zone
which contributes for major emissions. Figure 5.3a, 5.3b, 5.3c, 5.3d, 5.3e shows emission
characteristics of diesel fuel from CI engine. Hydrocarbon exhibited a complete uptrend from no load
to full load condition. At lower load HC emission was 19ppm followed by 21ppm and 25ppm at
intermediate and higher loads. Because of higher molecular weight of diesel, the boiling and
condensation temperature are also high. Hence soot formation is high than HC emission. Hydrocarbon
condenses to solid surface as solid carbon soot which is formed during combustion. Lean operation of
diesel engine and few rich fuel zone with lack of oxygen leading to less HC emission. Small amount of
fuel accumulation in nozzle sac volume and crevice volumes are the main source of HC emission in
diesel operated CI engine.

Carbon monoxide is colourless and odourless poisonous gas formed from fuel rich zone inside
cylinder. Lack of oxygen which causes partial oxidation of carbon in fuel to carbon monoxide. Carbon
energy in fuel is lost

38
when it is converted to CO. Incomplete combustion, improper mixing and localised rich region are
other sources for CO emission of diesel fuel.

a.

b.

Figure 5.3 (Continued)

39
 c.

d.

Figure 5.3 (Continued)

40
 e.

Figure 5.3Emission characteristics of diesel fuel in CI engine

Exhaust gas of CI engine operating with diesel contains Nitrogen oxide (NO), Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) etc. These emission with nitrogen grouped together as oxides of nitrogen (NOx). NOx is
undesirable emission and is formed from nitrogen in air. During low temperature nitrogen exists as
stable diatomic molecule. At high temperatures (above 1000°C) it breaks to monoatomic nitrogen (N)
which further reacts with oxygen to form NOx. At low loads reaction time is more and at high load
retention time is less with high temperature which causes more oxides of nitrogen.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is product of complete combustion. It is due to complete oxidation of

carbon molecules in fuel. Sufficient oxygen molecules is required inside cylinder for CO2 formation.
Lean mixture zone has more oxygen molecules which oxidises fuel particles completely. Since diesel
engine operating with excess air oxidation rate is high causing CO2 emission.

Smoke is solid form of carbon and is visible. It is product of incomplete combustion and rich
fuel zone are main source for this smoke formation. Though excess air is available in CI engine lack of
retention time and low temperature zone which makes fuel particles non- reactive to oxygen molecules
causes smoke. Hence at partial and full load condition smoke formation is more. These non-oxidised
components emitted as black carbon ie smoke in tail pipe.

5.2 EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF SWEET LIME PEEL OIL AND ITS BLENDS AS
A SOLE FUEL

Post establishing baseline scenario of engine on diesel mode, experiments were initiated with
blends of SLO and sole SLO at last. The annotations adopted for detailing the results operating with
SLO blends are tabulated under Table 5.1. The observations made on performance, combustion and
emission aspects of SLO and its blend were compared with diesel and are presented in ensuing
subsections.

41
 Table 5.1 Annotations for Sweet lime oil (SLO) and its blends

S.N Annotations Descripti

O on
1 SLO10 10% Sweet lime oil + 90 %
Diesel
2 SLO20 20% Sweet lime oil + 80 %
Diesel
3 SLO40 40% Sweet lime oil + 60 %
Diesel
4 SLO100 100% Sweet lime oil

5.2.1 Performance Characteristics

Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE) indicates the capacity of engine in converting the heat
available in input fuel to Brake Horse Power (BHP).

Figure 5.4 Brake thermal efficiency with varying engine load

Figure 5.4shows the variation of Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE) for the various blends of
Sweet Lime Oil (SLO) and diesel with different loading conditions. Initially properties of Sweet lime oil
was tested and it was found that SLO100 has least viscosity and higher density than other fuel blends.
The viscosity of SLO100 was lower and better calorific value which resulted in better brake thermal
efficiency than other SLO blends. It is observed that with increasing SLO concentration in dieselie
SLO10, SLO20, SLO40 viscosity of blends decreased leading to better atomization and spray
characteristics which also caused increased in BTE. However BTE is less than diesel (1.8cSt) because of
superior combustion quality of diesel (higher Carbon to Hydrogen Ratio) and presence of moisture
content in SLO fuels.

Engine operated with diesel had higher thermal efficiency because the engine itself was
designed to operate with diesel as fuel. Moreover lower

42
flashpoint and higher calorific value facilitated better performance of diesel. Among the SLO and its
blends, the outset of performance was observed to be SLO, SLO40, SLO20 and SLO10. This trend of
performance can be attributed to reduced viscosity and higher cetane number of SLO and its blends

The improvement in BTE observed were 25.87 %, 26.70 %, 28.78 % and 29.67 % for SLO10,
SLO20, SLO40 and SLO100. Presence of oxygen molecules would have enhanced the combustion
process and hence complete combustion would have occurred resulting in better thermal efficiency. It is
clear from the experiment that SLO showed better thermal efficiency at all load condition.
Experimental outcomes of Purushothaman et al. (2009), Tuccar et al. (2014), Lesniket al. (2016)
Dharet al. (2015), Ozer et al .(2014), Negm et al. (2016), Ayatallah et al. (2016), and Verma et
al.(2016), also exhibited same trends.

Figure 5.5 Brake specific fuel consumption with varying engine load

Figure 5.5represent the brake specific energy consumption of SLO, its blends and diesel with
increasing loading conditions. It is clear that SLO100 has higher fuel consumption than diesel.
Calorific value of SLO100 is less than diesel by 2652kJ/kg and it agrees well with BTE, which is inverse
profile of BSFC. BSFC of SLO100, SLO40,SLO20 and SLO10 were 25.612
%,36.08 %, 40.315 % and 45.079 %,higher than diesel at peak load condition. Fuel with lower calorific
value will exhibit higher fuel consumption to meet energy requirements. It is clear from Figure 7.1and
Figure 7.2that SLO100 profile lies closer to base fuel diesel in the performance aspect.

SLO has good combustion quality. Because of its superior combustion properties it undergoes
complete combustion. Hence fuel energy is utilized effectively. This phenomenon causes SLO100 to
exhibit lower BSFC than other blends. Lower viscosity and higher cetane number enabled lower BSFC
of SLO compared to its blends. The trends are in-line with Singh et al. (2014), Lopez et al.(2014),
Purushothaman et al. (2009), Ayatallah et al
. (2016), Dharet al. (2011), Ozer et al. (2014), Negmet al. (2016) and Agarwal
43
et al. (2016).

5.2.2 Combustion Characteristics

Figure 5.6 In-cylinder pressure with respect to Crank angle

Figure 5.6 represents the variation of in-cylinder pressure for various crank angle. It is clear
from the figure that maximum cylinder pressure is obtained for Diesel around 74.2 bar and lowest is
obtained for SLO10 of 60.12 bar. Calorific value, viscosity and Cetane number of a fuel are the three
major parameters that affects in cylinder pressure. When Cetane number and calorific value is good
and fuel viscosity is lower, uniform air fuel mixture is formed owing to increased cylinder pressure.
Lower calorific value of SLO and viscosity in comparison with diesel would have affected air fuel
mixture formation followed by lowered cylinder pressure. S100 showing improved cylinder pressure of
65.4 bar in comparison with SLO40 of 63.2 bar due to better calorific value, high pressure and lower
viscosity. Additionally presence of oxygen molecules involves in combustion also causes improved

cylinder pressure for SLO100 in comparison with SLO40, SLO20 and SLO10 with 63.2 bar, 62.4 bar,
60.12 bar respectively.

Figure 5.7 Heat release rate with varying Crank angle

Figures 5.7 and 5.8shows the variation of Heat release rate and cumulative heat release rate with
44
varying crank angle at 100% load condition. Highest value of heat release rate and a cumulative
heat release rate of
84. 14 J/ºCA is obtained for Diesel. Accumulation of fuel at premixed combustion phase (primary stage)
and lower cetane number of diesel liberating more amount of heat than any other testing fuels. SLO10
exhibits lower CHRR of 56.92 J/ºCA because of high viscosity and lower density than other blends
affected evaporation rate at premixed combustion stage. Improved cetane number of SLO10 makes it
to liberate heat at early stage of crank angle before TDC and makes more prolonged diffusion
combustion. Presence of oxygen plays major effect during latter stage of combustion.

Though SLO100 has high cetane number rise in HRR is late because of its higher flash point and
density.

Figure 5.8Cumulative Heat release rate with varying Crank angle

SLO100 exhibits CHRR of 787.66 J and it is about 22% higher than SLO10. Presence of more oxygen
molecules and better combustion quality attributes for more HRR. SLO10, SLO20, SLO40 exhibited peak
values of 56.92 J/ºCA, 60.12 J/ºCA and 63.41 J/ºCA. It is observed that highest cumulative heat release
rate is obtained for SLO100 (787.66 J) and is lower than diesel by 7.12%. Hence SLO100 resulted in
enhanced combustion than other fuels.

5.2.3 Emission Characteristics

Figure 5.9 displays the variation of Carbon monoxide emission for SLO and its blends along
with diesel. Non uniform graph trends were observed at different load condition. At initial load
condition SLO10 and SLO20 showed higher CO emission followed by SLO40 and SLO100. At peak
load SLO40 and SLO10 showed almost same CO emission followed by SLO20 and SLO 100.

45
 Figure 5.9 Variation of Carbon monoxide with respect to engine load

Higher viscosity of SLO10, SLO20 compared to SLO40 and SLO100 paved way for high CO
emissions at lower loads. However at higher load due to presence of high in- cylinder pressure and
associated temperature, the influence of viscosity has been marginalised facilitating better combustion
and hence reduced CO emission. Though overall CO emission which is very less in magnitude, it has
to be reduced as much as possible as it is carcinogenetic. At all blends CO emission of SLO and its
blends are lower than diesel. The drop in CO emission is 33.33 % and 33.22 % by SLO40 and SLO10
and 50.12% and 50.34 % by SLO20 and SLO 100 than diesel at full load. In general CO formation is due
to partial oxidation of fuel while burning (Gopal et al.2015 and Lopez et al.2014). The availability of the
oxygen molecules in biofuel blends would have paved way for conversion of CO to CO2. Naturally
SLO100 will have more oxygen content than any other fuel blends causing reduced CO emission.
Literatures such as Purushothaman et al. (2009), Thiyagarajan et al. (2019), Karthickeyan et al. (2019),
Vallinayagam et al. (2013), Ozer et al.(2014), Ayatallah et al.(2016), Singh et al.(2014), Dhar et
al.(2011) and Negm et al. (2016) obtained similar trends of CO emission.

Figure 5.10 Hydrocarbon with varying engine load

46
 Figure 5.10 represents the variation of hydrocarbon emission for various blends of SLO fuel
with diesel at varying load conditions. It is clear from the graph that as the concentration of SLO in
diesel is increased the HC emission is reduced. Raw SLO fuel shows very less hydrocarbon emission
trend than other blends. At maximum load condition 24%drop of HC is obtained than diesel. With
increasing load, hydrocarbon curve becomes steeper which may be due to higher fuel availability in
combustion zone or more fuel mixture in crevice region (Purushothaman et al.2009 and Ozer et
al.2014). It can be concluded that higher oxygen content in biofuel coped with lower viscosity aided for
better combustion and hence less hydrocarbon emission occurred. Similar results were identified
with Dhar et al.(2015), Verma et al. (2016), Ozer et al.(2014), Negmet al. (2016), Ayatallah et al.(2016),
Purushothaman et al. (2009), Lesnik et al .(2016) and Tucca ret al .(2014).

Figure 5.11 Carbon dioxide with varying engine load

Figure 5.11illustrates Carbon dioxide emission for different blends of SLO fuel along with
diesel at varying engine load conditions. Almost all blends showing higherCO2 emission than diesel.
Significant increase in CO2is noted for SLO than its blends. The increase in CO2 by SLO may be
attributed to enhanced combustion properties which caused complete combustion and also due to the
existence of the oxygen molecules in biofuel (Purushothaman et al.2009 and Dhar et al.2011).
Moreover less calorific value of SLO resulted in more fuel consumption which supplied more carbon
molecule inside cylinder owing to superior control. SLO100 at full load resulted in around 18%
higher emissions. The findings are in coherence with Verma et al. (2016), Purushothaman et al.
(2009), Ozer et al. (2014), Lopez et al. (2014), Negm et al. (2016) and Ayatallah et al. (2016).

47
 Figure 5.12 Oxides of Nitrogen with varying engine load

Figure 5.12 depicts the Oxides of Nitrogen emission for various blends of SLO and diesel at
increasing load conditions. NOx emission for SLO fuels is considerably higher than diesel at all loads.
At high load condition, the NOx emission for SLO100 was 1596 ppm and for diesel was 1071 ppm.
Low viscous fuels with good ignition properties possess high flame temperature owing to increased in-
cylinder temperature and hence high adiabatic flame temperature is observed for SLO, resulted in
increased in NOx (Velmurugan et al.2015 and Verma et al.2016). Overall SLO 100 resulted in 49.01
% increase in NOX emission at full load condition than diesel. The obtained trends are in-line with
Purushothaman et al. (2009), Ozer et al.(2014), Ayatallah et al. (2016), Dharet al. (2011) and
Negm et al. (2016).

Figure 5.13 Smoke opacity with varying engine load

48
 Figure 5.13showsvariation of smoke opacity with varying engine load of SLO in comparison to
diesel. Smoke indicates incomplete combustion of fuels. Smoke opacity of all fuels had been observed
to increase with increasing load. This smoke emission is due to lack of retention time for combustion
especially at full load as time available for combustion of fuels is less. Emission of biofuels are lower
than diesel at all loads. As discussed early, biofuels having undergone better combustion, product of
incomplete combustion also reduced considerably than diesel. Hence SLO100 has 56.92 % less smoke
than diesel followed by SLO40 of 41.53%,SLO20 of 35.38%,and SLO10of 16.92 %. Similar findings
were observed in literatures such as Purushothaman et al. (2009), Ozer et al.(2014), Ayatallah et
al.(2016), Dhar et al. (2011), Verma et al. (2016) and Negm et al. (2016).

5.2.4 Summary

From the experimental results it is clear that SLO100 biofuel is a promising biofuel. It can be
used in diesel engine directly without any engine modification as an alternative fuel.

 Sweet lime oil as a raw biofuel resulted in better performance, whereas for other blends its
less.

 Thermal efficiency and brake specific fuel consumption were also better than any other
fuels blends used. 9 % drop in thermal efficiency and 25.6 % increase in BSFC of SLO100
observed in comparison to diesel.

 Lower emissions such as hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide and smoke were

observed. Reduction of HC, CO and smoke at full load of SLO were 24 %, 50 %, and 56.92
% lower than diesel. On the contrary, Oxides of Nitrogen and Carbon dioxide werehigher
than diesel by 49.01% and 18.03 % because of better combustion.

 Cylinder pressure and heat release rate of SLO100 was higher than all other blends/diesel.
SLO100 seems to be better alternative energy source than its blends with respect to diesel.

5.3 EXPERIMENTAL OUTCOME OF SWEET LIME OIL WITH ALUMINA NANO

ADDITIVES

From previous experiments, based on performance, combustion and emissions,SLO100 was

identified as better fuel than its blends for diesel engine. However it was found that SLO100 lag in
few aspects than diesel such as emission of higher oxides of nitrogen and carbon dioxide than diesel.
In order to mitigate these emissions, experiments were conducted using nano additives.

5.3.1 Approach and Experimental Procedure

In past few decades research has been done on fuel borne Nano additives to reduce emissions
and improve performance characteristics (Patel & Kumar (2017), Sivakumar et al. (2018), Gumus et
al. (2016), Jung et al. (2012), Wong et al. (2010). Hence in present work also, the author has opted to
49
use nano additive to meet above requirements. Based on literatures (Section 2.3), author has decided to
use alumina nano particles additives with blends for improvements of result outcomes.

Alumina nano additives were synthesised using Sol-Gel method and mixed with SLO to make
10ppm, 20ppm and 30ppm blends. Homogeneity of the mixture was achieved using ultra sonication.
The test fuels were used in engine and their performance, combustion and emission characteristics were
compared with previous results of SLO.

Table 5.2 Annotations for Sweet lime oil (SLO) and Alumina nanoparticle blends

S.No Annotations Description

.
1 SLO10ppm 100% Sweet lime oil +10 ppm Alumina nano
particles
2 SLO20ppm 100% Sweet lime oil +20 ppm Alumina nano
particles
3 SLO30ppm 100% Sweet lime oil +30 ppm Alumina nano
particles
4 SLO100 100% Sweet lime oil

5.3.2 Performance Characteristics

The performance characteristics observed with Nano particle for three different dosages
SLO+10ppm, SLO+20ppm, SLO+30ppm blends and its results were compared with diesel and SLO100.
First brake thermal efficiency of blends were compared and is displayed in Figure 5.14. At full load
condition the BTE of fuels were 30.52%, 32.31% and 31.69% for SLO10ppm, SLO20ppm and
SLO30ppm respectively.

The catalytic activity of hydrocarbon chain and oxygen buffering of Al2O3 resulted in improved
combustion. Among various blends of alumina+ SLO fuels, SLO20ppm showing higher BTE and close
to diesel. It is due to the dispersion of alumina nano particle with gain of momentum in fuel combustion
zone (Gumus et al. 2016). SLO20ppm seems to be optimum value of doping of Al2O3 which could be
attributed to the lowest flash point compared to all other blends. Dispersion of Al 2O3 was predominant
for 20ppm because of optimum strength and is low for SLO10ppm due to low strength of Al2O3 in per
litre of SLO. Beyond SLO20ppm i.e for SLO30ppm agglomeration of Al2O3 occurs which reduces
dispersion effect. BTE for SLO10 ppm, SLO20ppm, SLO 30ppm is 7.31%, 1.89%, 3.75% less than
diesel and 2.87 %, 8.88%, 6.81% greater than SLO100. Sivakumar et al. (2018),

SadhikBashaet al. (2011), and Prabuet al. (2016) also experienced similar results.

50
 Figure 5.14 Brake thermal efficiency with varying engine load

Figure 5.15 BSFC with varying engine load

The BSFC profile of fuels is shown in Figure 5.15. BSFC tends to step down gradually
irrespective of test fuels. SLO20ppm exhibits low BSFC which may be due to higher calorific value than
other blends causing reduced fuel consumption (Sivakumar et al. 2018). Thus SLO20 ppm showing
better BSFC and BTE. Previous researchers Hosseini et al.(2017), Sivakumar et al.(2018), Gumus et
al.(2016) and Prabu et al.(2016) obtained similar results.

5.3.3 Combustion Characteristics

Figure 5.16 illustrates the in-cylinder pressure vs crank angle graph for SLO alumina blends. As
seen from Figure 5.16 SLO resulted in higher in- cylinder pressure where as fuel with aluminium nano
additives revealed low in-cylinder pressure.

51
 Figure 5.16Cylinder pressure with varying Crank angle

With increasing alumina concentration till 30ppm cylinder pressure increased. It is also clear
that the pressure rise is also earlier for low concentrated alumina nano additive of 10ppm. This
improvement in pressure trend is due to enhanced evaporation, better air fuel mixing and long spray
pattern of alumina blends. Highest in-cylinder pressure of 69.21 bar was obtained for SLO30 among the
alumina blends. Though diesel has less cetane number than SLO100, it is a fossil fuel with more carbon
and hydrogen content. Calorific value of diesel is highest among all the compared fuels and hence it is
having highest in-cylinder pressure. Among the SLO and its blends, SLO has the highest flash point
leading to larger delay period, paving way for fuel accumulation and large uncontrolled combustion
zone, leading to increase in in-cylinder pressure

Figure 5.17 Heat release rate with varying Crank angle

52
 HRR and CHRR profiles are shown in Figures 5.17 & 5.18. HRR and CHRR for all blends are
lower than diesel and is close to SLO100.Fuel accumulation in premixed combustion phase may be
main reason for the drop of HRR. Combined effect of better cetane number, calorific value, more
carbon and hydrogen content, more fuel accumulation at early stage of combustion led diesel to exhibit
high HRR and CHRR. SLO fuels has less HRR and CHRR. This may be due to low fuel accumulation in
premixed combustion phase (primary stage) because of less delay period of SLO10ppm, SLO20ppm and
SLO30ppm than diesel fuel). They exhibit a HRR of 60.2J/ºCA, 55.3 J/ºCA and 63.2 J/ºCA which
are marginally lower than SLO100 with 65.2 J/ºCA and lower than diesel with 72.2 J/ºCA. Similarly,
CHRR is also lower by 1.31 %, 1.4 % and 1.42 % for SLO10ppm, SLO20ppm and SLO30ppm than
SLO100 fuel. Addition of alumina nano particles also supported for better combustion due to catalytic
activity of nano particle by providing additional oxygen molecules for combustion aiding for better heat
release. To conclude, addition of nano additives lowered peak pressure and peak heat release rate
marginally and SLO20ppm is treat as best blend (BB).

Figure 5.18 Cumulative Heat release rate with varying Crank angle

5.3.4 Emission Characteristics

Figure 5.19 depicts the Carbon monoxide emission values for all the test fuel. SLO and its
blends exhibit less carbon monoxide emission. This is due to existence of inherent oxygen molecules in
fuel.

53
 Figure 5.19 Carbon monoxide with varying engine load

CO emission was further reduced due to addition of Al2O3 which increased combustion rate
owing to enhanced catalytic reaction (Gumus et al. 2016). Al2O3 based fuel showed lower CO than
diesel at various power outputs. CO emission reduced till 20ppm dosage addition in SLO but it
increased for 30ppm dosage fuel because of agglomeration of nano particles which affects combustion
process. Thus catalytic reaction was not active for higher blend and is limited to 20ppm. Beyond 20ppm
catalytic action and zeta potential effect becomes inactive which led to increased emissions. Emission of
CO from SLO is lower than diesel which could probably be due to reduced viscosity, higher inherent
oxygen and better cetane number. However among the blends, SLO20 ppm has the least emission which
could be due to optimal loading/ doping of nano particles. However doping leads to inferior performance
while higher doing of nano particles paves way for their agglomeration, again leading to poor
characteristics. Lowered emission of CO is reported by Sivakumar et al.(2018), Gumus et al.(2016) and
Prabu et al. (2016).

Figure 5.20 Hydrocarbon with varying engine load

54
 Hydrocarbon emission trend for test fuels is displayed in Figure 5.20. As observed
earlier, Hydrocarbon emission is lower than diesel fuel for SLO100. Addition of nano particles has
reduced HC considerably. Reduction in HC emission was inferred till 20ppm dosage of Alumina. It is
clearly understood that SLO20ppm showing best and reduced emission. 31.95 % reduction of HC than
diesel and 6.625 % reduction in HC than SLO is observed. Alumina nano particles liberates oxygen at
low temperature zone on reaction with UBHC and converts into Al 2O3(+3) valence state (Dhinesh et
al. 2017 and Shaafi et al. 2015). Thus HC emission reduced significantly.Al2O3 would have enhanced
oxygen buffering and contact area of mixture which improved burning rate (Sivakumar et al.2018).
These effects of Al2O3 were active till 20ppm. On further increase of Al2O3 to 30ppm in SLO
(SLO30ppm blend) these effects are inactive because of agglomeration and over concentration. Thus
SLO20 ppm showed least emission of hydrocarbon. Similar results were obtained by Sadhik Basha et al.
(2011), Prabu et al.(2016) and Gumus et al.(2016).

Figure 5.21 Carbon dioxide with varying engine load

Figure 5.21shows the Carbon dioxide emission for nano based fuels with varying loading
conditions. SLO100 showing higher CO2 emission than diesel. Addition of alumina nano particle
increased CO2 emission slightly especially SLO20ppm showing greater CO2 emission. This rise in CO2
would be due to enhanced combustion properties due to which complete combustion has occurred. Better
heating value and less viscosity of these fuel resulted in better atomization and enhanced fuel air mixing
(Zhu et al.2012). CO2 emission is increasing with increasing load condition due to increased cylinder
wall temperature (Patel et al.2017). From graphs upon comparison with diesel SLO
10ppm,SLO20ppm,SLO30ppm showed 26.25 %, 30.08%, and 18.03% rise in CO2 at full load
condition. Superior combustion rate and activation energy of nano additives liberating oxygen in low
temperature region also attributed for more CO2 emission. These results are similar with Gumus et
al.(2016), Sivakumar et al.(2018) and Shaafi et al.(2015)

55
 Figure 5.22 Oxides of Nitrogen with varying engine load

Figure 5.22demonstrate oxides of Nitrogen emission for various fuel blends. It is understood
that oxide of Nitrogen is higher for SLO100 and is reduced by introducing aluminium nanoparticle in it.
Among the blends, least NOx emission is exhibited by SLO20ppm because of minimal agglomeration
effect and catalytic reduction reaction of nanoAl2O3. Beyond 20ppm (for SLO30ppm) more
agglomeration occurs causing bulk burning of mixture causes rise in temperature to produce more NOx.
Flash point of SLO20ppm is least compared to all other blends, reduced ignition delay. This paved for
better combustion, lower in-cylinder pressure and associated temperature and hence comparatively
low NOx. Fuel with oxygen content will support for better combustion. This oxygen in fuel will
enhance better combustion which increased NOx formation. But interestingly nano particles blend
reduced NOx emission as 18.06 %, 4.57% and 3.895% from SLO10ppm, SLO20ppm and SLO30ppm
respectively on equated with SLO100. At higher temperature Al 2O3(+3) state is converted into
stoichiometric ALO2(+4) valence state at a high temperature and thereby reducing NOx emission.

Al2O3+NO2AlO2+ ½ N2 (8.3)

Figure 5.23 Smoke with varying engine load

56
 Figure 5.23 displays smoke opacity for fuels with varying engine load condition. Smoke
emission is reduced for biofuel than diesel. At full load condition smoke opacity of SLO 100 is 60.92%
lower than diesel.

Oxygenated fuel resulted in step down of smoke than diesel because of lack of aromatic compound
and reduced Carbon to Hydrogen ratio. Al2O3 blend displays reduced smoke than SLO 100 and is
identified as 24.51%, 8.17% and 10.24% drop in smoke opacity for SLO10ppm, SLO20ppm and
SLO30ppm respectively. SLO20ppm was better because of lower viscosity and minimum agglomeration
of nano particles whereas this effect is very less forSLO10ppmblend because of very less concentration
of Al2O3 per litre of SLO. Rise in BTE were in accordance with Sivakumar et al. (2018), Zhu et
al.(2012) and Patel et al.(2017).

5.3.5 Summary

1. SLO is proven to be a reliable optimum fuel in terms of performance, combustion and

emission aspects. Apart from above benefits NOx emission increased.

2. Fuel borne nano additive (Al2O3) was used to reduce emission and improve performance.
HC, CO & smoke emission reduced reasonably but NOx increased. The following results
obtained which highlights the role of Al2O3nano particle in blends.

3. Addition of alumina nano particles has enhanced the inherent properties of sweet lime oil
such as reduced viscosity and improved calorific value. These effects had good impact on
atomization and vaporization of fuel.

4. BTE of SLO 20ppm was 8.88% higher than SLO and whereas CO,HC, NOx and smoke
were 25%,6.625% 4.57% and 8.17%less than SLO100.

5. Optimum dosage of alumina with SLO is identified as 20ppm and is treated as best blend
(BB) for carrying out further experimentations.

5.4 INFLUENCE OF COMBUSTION CHAMBER GEOMETRY ON THE OPERATION OF

BEST BLEND (BB)

In order to enhance the performance of engine fuelled with bio fuel, apart from fuel
modification, alterations of other engine parameters like varying injection system, compression ratio
and combustion bowl design had been attempted. From previous chapter it is understood that
SLO+20ppm showing better result from better performance, combustion and emission point of view and
it is treated as Best Blend(BB) for further experimentation. Studies were carried out to enhance
combustion, performance & emission parameters of BB in different combustion bowl geometry and the
results are summarised below.

57
5.4.1 Approach and Experimental Procedure

Apart from existing hemispherical combustion chamber, three different combustion bowls
namely Shallow depth re-entrant combustion bowl(SDRC), toroidal re-entrant combustion bowl
(TRCC)and toroidal combustion bowl (TCC) were selected for the study. The combustion bowl volume
is kept constant to ensure same compression ratio. The pictorial representation of bowls is shown in
Figure. SDRC and TRCC having re- entrant bowl profile. These geometries has ability to recirculate the
mixture again into the rich combustion zone aiding better combustion. TCC has profile without re-
entry and is observed to be advantageous in producing high swirl & squish (refer section 2.4).

Experimental analysis was carried out in engine using the above mentioned combustion bowls
with (SLO+20ppm) BB fuel while Diesel and SLO100 were operated with HCC profile and
compared. Results were compared to identify best combustion geometry for BB.

Table 5.3 Annotations for BB operating with different combustion geometry

S.N Annotations Descripti

o on
1. HCC Best blend fuel (SLO20ppm) operated
with hemispherical combustion chamber
2. BB-SDRCC Best blend fuel (SLO20ppm) operated
with
Shallow depth re-entrant combustion
chamber
3. BB-TRCC Best blend fuel (SLO20ppm) operated
with Toroidal re-entrant combustion
chamber
4. BB-TCC Best blend fuel (SLO20ppm) operated
with Toroidal combustion chamber

5.4.2 Performance Characteristics

Figure 5.24 shows variation of BTE for different combustion bowl operating with BB biofuel.
From the result, it is clear that piston bowl geometry does play a significant role in engine performance.
It is observed from outcome that all three new combustion chamber geometries viz SDRCC, TRCC and
TCC yielded higher performance compared with BB by 3.73%, 4.81% and 2.89 %.

It is due to good squish motion leading to better air-fuel interaction of BB. Further, enhancement
of turbo kinetic energy because of re-entry profile, also increases swirl motion resulting in better
combustion (Singh et al. 2017). Among all combustion chamber geometries, it is inferred that TRCC has
highest brake thermal efficiency of 33.86%, possibility due to effect of re-entry profile

58
design and higher swirl development. The trends are in par with Jaichandar et al.
(2012), Wickman et al. (2003) and Kashipura et al. (2017).

Figure 5.24 Brake thermal efficiency with varying engine load

Figure 5.25 Brake specific fuel consumption with varying engine load

The profile of BSFC is inverse profile of brake thermal efficiency and is shown in Figure 5.25.
For TCC fuel consumption was about0.250(kg/ kWh) due to lack of swirl intricacy. Similarly SDRCC&
TRCC has improved fuel economy of 0.231(kg/kWh) and 0.210(kg/kWh). This improvement can be
attributed due to mixture flow again inside combustion zone and hence better mixture formation
(Jyothiet al.2017). Hence TRCC stands good choice from performance point of view considering both
BTE &BSFC. These trends are in-line with Kashipuraet al.(2017), Jyothiet al.(2017) and Patel et
al.(2017).

59
5.4.3 Combustion Characteristics

Figure 5.26Cylinder pressure with varying Crank angle

Figure 5.26depicts variation of in-cylinder pressure for various combustion chamber geometry
with respect to crank angle for BB. It is observed from figure that higher peak pressure is observed for
all three modified combustion chamber geometries. The peak in-cylinder pressure observed for TRCC
(70.138 bar) and TCC (64.2 bar) models. This improvement in peak pressure may be attributed to good
mixing rate and evaporation rate. Modified combustion chamber also facilitated better fuel spray
penetration. High in-cylinder pressure is observed for TCC model next to diesel is because of re-entrant
profile which improved atomization, mixing and vaporization rate. TCC has lowest thermal efficiency
compared to all other two geometries. Occurrence of peak pressure for TCC is also delayed and less
than TRCC. It may be due to longer ignition delay which attributed for uncontrolled combustion and
increased peak pressure. Longer delay period for TCC than TRCC design was due to lack of squish
effect and re entrant profile.

60
 Figure 5.27Heat release rate with varying Crank angle

Figure 5.28Cumulative Heat release rate with varying Crank angle

Profiles of Heat release rate and cumulative heat release rate are shown in
Figures5.27&5.28.HRR and CHRR is also exhibits same trend. TRCC exhibits highest peak HRR of
77.8 J/ deg CA followed by TCC with peak heat release rate of 69.78 77.8 J/ deg CA and SDRCC with
peak heat release rate of 63.377.8 J/ deg CA is observed. TCC creates swirl along air flow direction
which causes reduction in ignition delay and increased peak HRR than SDRCC. Toroidal re-entrant
combustion chamber (TRCC) creates both swirl and squish effect to make air fuel mixture to burn better.
These combined effect of TRCC speeds up combustion and reduces delay period. This causes quick
burning of mixture with more heat liberation. Moreover the re-entrant profile which brings rich mixture
to combustion zone thereby burning them. Hence highest peak is obtained for TRCC. These models
supported for higher fuel spray preparation and improved burning rate and also are in good agreement
with CHRR values.

5.4.4 Emission Characteristics

Emission at exhaust was measured for different combustion bowl in order to decide compare of
identify the best one. Modified geometry of yielded combustion bowl yielded better performance at
reduced emission. It is inferred from Figure 5.29 that emission of carbon monoxide reduced for all three
different combustion bowl profiles.

61
 Figure 5.29 Carbon monoxide with varying engine load

On comparison of BB with SDRCC, TRCC and TCC, the engine operated with TRCC
exhibited less carbon monoxide emission probably is due to better oxidation of CO. 55.85%,49.57%
and 57.37%less CO emission than diesel for SDRCC, TRCC and TCC profile is obtained. It may be due
to good air motion inside bowl with default oxygen molecules present in BB fuel. TRCC exhibits
reduction in combustion duration. These effects are due to re-entrant profile of TRCCC, causing
increased and swirl and squish effect owing to better combustion reduced combustion duration
(Vedharaj et al. 2015).These results are in good agreement with findings of Singh et al. (2017),
Patel et al.(2017) and Jyothi et al.(2017)

Figure 5.30 Hydrocarbon with varying engine load

The profile for various HC emission of BB operating in SDRCC, TRCC & TCC is shown in
Figure 5.30.Hydrocarbon is reduced for combustion bowl fuels than usual fuel. It is 44.7%,
46.749%and 41.23 % less for SDRCC, TCC & TRCC at full load. Re-entry has tendency to present
62
kinetic energy mixture, to create sufficient swirl along with squish and redirecting mixture to rich
combustion zone wall of TRCC. Lowered emission of Hydrocarbon are in good agreement with
Vedharaj et al.(2015), Kashipura et al.(2017) and Patel et al.(2017).On whole TRCC-BB has higher
oxygen content and its capacity to prevent the rich mixture formation are the main reasons.

Figure 5.31Carbon dioxide with varying engine load

Figure 5.31displaysCO2 emission of BB with various combustion bowl modification. With

increased load the complete combustion is enhanced due to more cylinder temperature which can be
understood from Figure 9.8. BB when operated with different combustion bowls results in35.80%,
51.57% and 32.67% higher CO2 for bowls considered respectively. This may be due to shared effect of
oxygen rich BB biofuel and bowl profile considered for study. TRCC shows more CO2 because of
better mixture formation in hot zone and thereby enhances the oxidation rate along with nano additive
owing to complete combustion (Kashipura et al.2017). These are in contradiction with Vedharaj et
al.(2015), Singh et al. (2017) and Patel et al. (2017).

63
 Figure 5.32 Oxides of Nitrogen with varying engine load

Figure 5.32showcases Oxides of Nitrogen for BB with varying load for different combustion
bowls. Diesel fuel exhibited minimum NOx followed by BB blend because of surge in combustion
efficiency and presence of oxygen molecules at high temperature zones. Emission gain for SDRCC
&TRCC is high due to improvement in turbulence level which enhanced the combustion rate and hence
more NOx formation. The NOx formed were 1366.5ppm, 1712.40ppm and 1310.60ppm for
SDRCC,TRCC and TCC whereas for BB is 1258.71ppm. TCC showcases reduced value of NOx due to
lack of swirl and it is clear that TRCC stays high but with improved efficiency (Singh et al. 2017 and
Patel et al.2017). Some low NOx emission results were observed for Jaichandar et al. (2012), Prasad et
al.(2011),Wickman et al.(2003) and Kashipura et al.(2017).

Figure 5.33 Smoke with varying engine load

Figure 5.33demonstrated smoke formation with respect to varying load for different combustion
bowl profile. On operation with these combustion bowls smoke reduced reasonability. It is because of
the better mixing and combustion rate,97.52%, 83.18% and 82.80% reduction than diesel is observed
for TRCC, SDRCC &TCC. It is clear that TRCC bowl undergoes better combustion than any other.
Figure 9.10 shows reduced smoke emission for TRCC followed by TCC and SDRCC. These results
are also in accordance with Ravichandran et al. (2016),Vedharaj et al.(2015) and Patel et al. (2017).

64
 5.4.5 Summary

The experimental assessments were performed with 3 different combustion bowl viz., SDRCC,
TRCC, TCC. TRCC shows better results than other combustion bowls including base bowl (BB) [i.e.
hemispherical which is the conventional combustion bowl.]. Their details has been drawn below.

1. From study it is shown that TRCC has 4.81% increase in BTE with loss of fuel
consumption. Elaboration of swirl motion is the main reason followed by other combustion
bowls.

2. In emission aspects TRCC dominated superior emission reduction with BB. Reduction
observed for HC emission by 46.74%,CO by 57.37% and smoke opacity by 75.3%
compared with base bowl emission. It may be due to formation of long spray path with
reduction of impingement on wall for better turbulence kinetic energy.

It can be concluded that base bowl (hemispherical) is suitable for diesel and no suitable for
novel BB. It can be stated that based on results combustion bowl ranking can be ordered as follows.

TRCC > TCC> SDRCC >BB (hemispherical).

5.5 EFFECT OF INJECTION TIMING UPON OPERATION WITH BEST BLEND AND
TRCC

Performance of a diesel engine is influenced by various parameters such as properties of fuel,

fuel injection pressure, combustion chamber geometry, injector size and compression ratio.

From previous experimentation, it is clear that combustion chamber geometry had significant
influence over the performance, combustion and emission characteristics of the test fuel. Diesel engines
are designed to operate exclusively with diesel fuel. When other fuels like biofuel, alcohol or gaseous
fuels are utilized, certain engine design modifications are required because of change in fuel properties
with an aim for further improvement. Injection timing was varied to study its influence over
combustion, performance and emission terms.

5.5.1 Approach and Experimentation Procedure

From the detailed literature survey (Section 2.5) it was found that by altering the injection
parameters, surface area of fuel droplets gets enhanced to burn better which reflected in improvements
of test fuel usage. Hence in this work, the injection timing was altered from the original timing of
23ºbTDC. It was decided to alter the injection timing to 24ºbTDC (AT24), 22°bTDC (RT22) and
21ºbTDC (RT21). Engine was operated with these injection timings in TRCC combustion bowl with
constant amount of fuel injection at standard injection pressure of 200 bar.
65
Table 5.4 Annotations for BB (Best blend-SLO20ppm) operation with different injection timing
in TRCC

S.N Annotations Description

O
1 TRCC RT21 Toroidal re-entrant combustion chamber
o
profile with 21 retarded injection timing
operating with BB(Best blend-SLO20ppm)
fuel.
2 TRCC RT22 Toroidal re-entrant combustion chamber
o
profile with 22 retarded injection timing
operating with BB (Best Blend- SLO20ppm)
fuel.
3 TRCC AT24 Toroidal re-entrant combustion chamber
o
profile with 24 advanced injection timing
operating with BB (Best Blend- SLO20ppm)
fuel.

5.5.2 Performance Characteristics

The effect of injection timing with BB and TRCC on BTE is shown in Figure 5.34. From
Figure, it is clear that RT22 has shown improved BTE and is close to diesel fuel followed by AT24 and
RT21. All these trends are better than BB-HCC. Improvement in BTE for RT22 is 2.916% than
diesel and 10.36% than BB-HCC.

Figure 5.34 Brake thermal efficiency with varying engine load

Fire point of SLO is 80°C while that of diesel is 75°C (Table 4.1). Three injection timing 24 oCA

66
bTDC, 22oCA bTDC, 21oCA bTDC were adopted to analyse the effect of injection timing with respect
to baseline injection timing of 23obTDC. It was observed that 22oCA bTDC was best among other for
the following reasons. Advancing 24oCA bTDC has not yielded better performances as the flash point of
SLO is much lower than diesel. Among the retarded injection timing (22obTDC and 21obTDC) RT22
was observed to be superior. Flash point of SLO20 is lowest as compared to other blends. Retarding
reduced timing for ignition and combustion. RT22 as compared to RT21 yielded better combustion
which is explicit in P-ϴ diagram depicted in figure 5.36. retarding beyond 22oCA bTDC provided less
time for the fuel to undergo combustion leading to inferior performance. Advancing the IT paved way
for more accumulation of fuel possible due to high ignition delay and late burning which led to poor
efficiency which are in accordance with Agarwal et al. (2015), Mani et al. (2009) and Ganapathy et
al. (2011).

Retarding injection timing facilitated better combustion of fuel due to existence of higher
temperature from previous cycle at time of fuel injection which supported for reduction in delay period.
Hence RT22 is observed to be superior than other IT. This signifies that, the TRCC chamber profile
enhances the combustion efficiency of BB at retarded timing of 22obTDC in comparison with other

Figure 5.35 BSFC with varying engine load

Figure 5.35 shows the variation of BSFC with respect to TRCC and BB throughout the engine
load condition. Quite opposite down trend is observed for BSFC as it is inversely proportional to BTE.
Moreover, it is observed that BSFC for TRCC-RT22 is lower than other test fuels with other injection
timings. Lowered energy consumption with retarded injection timings were in line with the findings of
Agarwal et al. (2015) and Mani et al. (2009). Better burning of fuel with RT22 caused reduced fuel
consumption. This could be attributed to effective fuel utilization at 22obTDC, which is also in good
agreement with BTE profile, where RT22 ensures highest BTE throughout the engine load condition.
Higher BSFC with advanced injection timings were reported in earlier studies of Sayinet al. (2009) and
Panneerselvam et al. (2015), while lower BSFC with retarded injection timings were reported in

67
literatures of Gnanasekaran et al. (2016) and Goel et al.(2017). The combined effect of TRCC and
RT22 stands good in BSFC curve and is also an optimum model for better operation. These trends are in
good accordance with Shameer et al.(2018), Goel et al.(2017) and Kannan et al. (2012).

5.5.3 Combustion Characteristics

Figure 5.36 represents the in-cylinder pressure variation for best blend fuel in modified TRCC
model at different injection timings. All the test blends when compared to BB-HCC shows higher in-
cylinder pressure with small shift in peak pressure range. Perhaps, this typical piston profile would have
caused rise in cylinder temperature with reduced delay period and enhanced combustion efficiency.

Figure 5.36Cylinder pressure with varying Crank angle

On varying the injection timing, cylinder pressure also increases suddenly to 78.9 bar for
retarded injection timing of 22ºbTDC, whereas it is around 77.4 bar for retarded injection timing of
21°bTDC and 74 bar for advanced injection timing of 24ºbTDC. For retarded fuel injection, the SOI is
delayed and hence lowered combustion duration with higher peak in-cylinder temperature and pressure
is occurred. These effects are due to more fuel accumulation and sudden release of fuel energy which
caused increased peaks for pressure and heat release. The air inside the bowl is at higher pressure and
temperature which has a good effect on ignition delay. Hence, better in-cylinder pressure is obtained for
retarded injection timings. These are analogous with findings of Kannan et al. (2012) and Deep et al.
(2017). TRCC RT22 indicating higher in cylinder pressure than any other test fuel blends.

68
 Figure 5.37Heat release rate with varying Crank angle

Figure 5.38Cumulative Heat release rate vs Crank angle

Figures 5.37 and 5.38 shows the variation of HRR and CHRR for different injection timing of
fuel. Combined effects of oxygen supply capability of nano particle and turbulence inducement of re-
entrant bowl have resulted in peak heat release rate. Steeper HRR is observed for TRCC RT22 which is
different from the profile of other timings. Typically, on retarding the injection timing, the fuel will
have lower heat release rate. But in present work the higher heat release rate is observed for retarded
process because of rapid burning characteristics of sweet lime oil owing to its better combustion
properties such as good volatility, quick vaporising property, lower viscosity and higher cetane index.
The above mentioned fuel properties were also observed by several researchers (Sarno et al. 2020,
Saikia et al. 2020, Katiyar et al. 2019 and Ezekoye et al. 2019).It is observed that TRCC-RT22 is the
best injection timing for SLO.

69
5.5.4 Emission Characteristics

Figure 5.39 illustrates the variation of CO emissions for BB along with TRCC for various
injecting timings. Least emission of CO is noted for TRCC-RT22º followed by TRCC, TRCC-RT21°
and TRCC-AT24º respectively. Diesel fuel shows higher CO emissions in comparison with other
oxygenated blends. This could be due to lack of oxygen molecules in the mineral diesel fuel for
oxidation.

The effective oxidation of nano additives and biofuel combustion with favourable squish and
swirl motion at optimum residence time together caused more CO2 formation followed by lowered CO
emissions (Shameer et al. 2018). Reduced CO emissions trends were in accordance with findings of
Nwaforet al. (2000), Mani et al. (2009), CenkSayin et al. (2009), Deep et al. (2017),
Ganapathy et al. (2011), Goel et al. (2017) and Jaichandar et al. (2012).

Figure 5.39 Carbon monoxide with varying engine load

Figure 5.40 Hydrocarbon with varying engine load

Figure 5.40 displays the variation of hydrocarbon (HC) emission for BB–TRCC with different

70
injection timings. HC for diesel is higher in all loads than any other blends. TRCC-AT24º exhibits
lowered HC emission by about 8.55%, by 25.10% for TRCC-RT22° and by 13.59% for TRCC-RT21 in
comparison with BB-HCC. Retarded injection timing especially for TRCC-RT22 has negligible HC
emission which can be due to reduced uncontrolled combustion phase of fuel enabling better combustion
of fuel mixture. Further, the swirl effect of bowl also could have attributed for lowered HC emissions.
These combined effects caused the lowered HC emissions especially for TRCC-RT22. These are
analogous with the findings of Nwafor et al. (2000), Mani et al.(2009), Cenk Sayin et al.(2009),
Ganapathy et al.(2011), Shameer et al.(2018) and Jaichandar et al.(2012) and Deep et al.(2017).

Figure 5.41 Carbon dioxide with varying engine load

Figure 5.41 portrays the variation of CO2 emissions for BB and TRCC operation throughout the
engine load condition. Lower CO2 is obtained for diesel fuel. Higher CO2 is observed for TRCC-AT24.
For BB-HCC, CO2 emission is around 90.07% followed by 74.69%, 66.26%, 50.37% and
30.08% at 75%, 50% and 25% engine loads respectively in comparison with diesel. When the engine
operated withTRCC-RT22 model, the CO2emission reduces which is probably due to lower BSFC.
Higher BTE facilitated lower BSFC leading to lowered CO2 emission. Longer delay period results in
longer retention of fuel. Sweet lime oil, which is less viscous and gets easily vaporized, has higher
latent heat for vaporization and hence the fuel mixture is almost in gaseous form. In addition, the
oxygen molecules present in fuel as well as Al2O3 nanoparticles also supplies oxygen. With these
combined effect, the fuel burns completely in the combustion zone. Further due to high cylinder
temperature, fuel in lean zone also burns completely. Squish and swirl motion of TRCC also have
contributed for better mixing. These pooled effects resulted in more CO2 emissions for TRCC-RT24.
Low temperature combustion also helped. TRCC-RT22 to exhibit less CO2 emission. Similar scenario
were observed in findings of Nwafor et al.(2000), Ganapathy et al
.(2011), Goel et al. (2017), Shameer et al .(2018) and Jaichandar et al .(2012).

71
 Figure 5.42 Oxides of Nitrogen with varying engine load

Figure 5.42 shows the variation of Oxides of Nitrogen operated with BB in modified injecting
timing & TRCC bowl engine model. Adiabatic Flame Temperature (AFT), excess oxygen content and
improved burning rate are the main reasons for NOx formation. At peak load, TRCC-RT21, TRCC-
AT24 and TRCC-RT22 has higher NOx than diesel by about 8.43%, 67.57%, and 49.01% and higher
NOx than BB-HCC by about 1.2 %, 42.58 % and 26.79% respectively. Better and close-by to BB
result is obtained for TRCC- RT21 because of controlled and low temperature combustion at retarded
injection timing. TRCC RT22 is an optimum model for NOx emission. Possibility of higher uncontrolled
combustion and after burning may be the cause for more NOx formation for other IT. These are in good
agreement with findings of Mani et al. (2009), CenkSayin et al. (2009), Deep et
al. (2017), Goel et al. (2017), Shameer et al. (2018) and Jaichandar et al. (2012).

72
 Figure 5.43 Smoke with varying engine load

Figure 5.43 shows the variation of smoke emissions for BB in modified combustion chamber at
various injecting timing. It is clearly understood that because of various modifications complete
combustion is occurring. Hence possibility of incomplete combustion is very less comparatively. Hence,
smoke which is a product of incomplete combustion also reduced and is almost Zero. For diesel, the
smoke is higher due to lack of oxygen and in cylinder temperature. It is observed that 82.80%, 100.95%,
92.55% reduction in smoke occurred for TRCC-RT21, TRCC-AT24, TRCC-RT22 than diesel and by
about27.18%, 92.3% and 68.47% in comparison with BB-HCC for than TRCC-RT21,TRCC-
AT24,TRCC-RT22. Thus smoke is mitigated considerably. These are in-line with the findings of
CenkSayin et al.(2009), Deep et al.(2017), Jaichandar et al.(2012) and Cenk Sayin et al.(2009).

5.5.5 Summary

The brief summary of experimental outcome carried out using Best blend biofuel and Toroidal
re-entrant combustion bowl is presented below. In the present work, engine is modified especially
injecting timing to enhance the performance of BB in diesel engine with TRCC mode.

Better outcome was seen for TRCC-RT22 combustion model (combustion, performance and
emission aspects). These can be attributed to favourable retarded injection timing for modified
combustion chamber enhancing the air-fuel mixing rate, evaporation rate and improved combustion
efficiency thereby resulting in high BTE and low BSFC profiles with reduced emissions. TRCC-RT22 is
decided as optimum model and is used for next experimentation. It can be concluded that for TRCC-
RT22, fuel gets prepared well for combustion and low temperature combustion of SLO also supported for
reduced CO2 and NOx emissions. Adding to this, better combustion properties and modified bowl model

73
attributes for better result outcome on performance combustion & emission characteristics. TRCC-RT22
is an optimum model for BB (SLO20ppm) operation.

5.6 INFLUENCE OF INJECTION PRESSURE ON OPERATION WITH BEST BLEND,

TRCC AND OPTIMISED INJECTION TIMING

Major problems associated with diesel engine operating with biofuels are reduced efficiency,
high fuel consumption and higher NOx, These issues are overcome by adopting various modification
strategies in this research work. Other than the combustion bowl modification and injection timing, the
injection pressure also plays a major role in engine performance. In this method fuel spray parameters
and mixing rate is enhanced. In present work BB is tested in engine with combination of optimized
combustion bowl, injection timing and injection pressure.

5.6.1 Approach and Experimental Procedure

Injection pressure plays a major role in atomization which handles droplet size, fuel evaporation
rate to enhance ignition delay and better utilization of high air temperature and penetration level. Larger
droplet size, longer evaporation time and poor penetration are some consequences of low injection
pressure operation fuel. These have effect on excess fuel consumption and excess tailpipe emissions.
With increasing pressure, the evaporation rate gets enhanced; fuel core size is reduced and penetration
rate is increased which causes high charge air motion. Literature survey were made which are similar to
present work and injection pressure of 180, 200, 220 and 240 bar were considered with same amount of
fuel injection for experimentation.

Table 5.5 Annotations for TRCC RT22model operation with different injection pressure

S.N Annotations Description

O
1 TRCC 22+180 Toroidal re-entrant combustion chamber with 22o
retarded injection timing and 180 bar injection
pressure
2 TRCC 22+200 Toroidal re-entrant combustion chamber with 22o
retarded injection timing and 200 bar injection
pressure
3 TRCC 22+220 Toroidal re-entrant combustion chamber with 22o
retarded injection timing and 220 bar injection
pressure
4 TRCC 22+240 Toroidal re-entrant combustion chamber with 22o
retarded injection timing and 240 bar injection
pressure

5.6.2 Performance Characteristics

The result outcome of BTE of biofuel operated with various injection pressure is portrayed in

74
Figure 5.44.At full load condition, the BTE of TRCC22-220, TRCC22-200, TRCC22-240 and
TRCC22-180 were about
34.70%, 33.89%, 33.58% and 30.04% respectively.

Figure 5.44 BTE with varying Engine load

It was noted that there is improvement in thermal efficiency up to 220 bar and BTE found to
decrease on further increase in pressure. It was also noted that, for 180 bar the thermal efficiency is
slightly reduced. At higher pressures especially for 240 bar injection pressure, the over mixing which
caused lean mixture, wall wetting and over penetration of mixture have occurred (Nanthagopal et al.
2016 and Sayin et al. 2012). For 180 bar injection pressure due to low pressure poor atomization and less
fuel momentum has occurred which caused reduction in thermal efficiency.

Figure 5.45 BSFC with varying Engine load

The trends for brake special fuel consumption operated with different injection pressures is
shown in Figure 5.45. At 100% load condition, the BSFC values of TRCC22-220, TRCC22-200,
TRCC22-240 and TRCC22-
75
180 were about 0.1371kg/kWhr, 0.17 kg/kWhr, 0.2132 kg/kWhr and 0.25339 kg/kWhr respectively.
BSFC is lower because of better utilization of the burnt mixture. In addition, this fuel has less viscosity
which caused better penetration and atomization owing to better combustion i.e. effective utilization
(Imtenan et al.2015 and Nanthagopal et al.2016). Further increase in pressure and engine modification
validates for low fuel consumption. Hence, fuel with low viscosity possess small droplets formation,
improved penetration of spray and higher velocity of fuel droplets which in turn results in less BSFC
especially for TRCC22-220. Similar scenario were noted with Belagur et al. (2009), Deep et al. (2017),
Kannan et al. (2012), Shameeret al. (2018), Sayin et al.(2012), Purushothaman&Nagarajanet
al.(2009) and Jindal et al.(2010).

Figure 5.46 Cylinder pressure with varying Crank angle

Effect of injection pressure on in-cylinder pressure is shown in Figure 5.46. It was clear from
the above observation that, SLO exhibits higher pressure because of lower viscosity, high volatility, high
cetane number and higher calorific value. For TRCC-200 bar the increase in marginal peak pressure
was observed than best blend (BB) on account of superior mixing and better evaporation rate. On
increasing the injection pressure, there is a surge in cylinder pressure for 240 bar and 200 bar injection
pressure and resulted in highest peak pressure of 79.15 bar for
200 bar injection pressure. Higher atomization rate along with decreased delay period has occurred.
On further increase of injection pressure to 240 bar or reducing beyond 200bar resulted in reduced in-
cylinder pressure owing to

76
very fine fuel spray characteristics thereby resulting in poor atomization which caused a dip in peak
pressure occurrence.

Figure 5.47Heat release rate with varying Crank angle

Figures 5.47 and 5.48 depicts the variation of HRR and CHRR curve for various injection
pressures at maximum engine load condition. Increase of injection pressure has a pronounced effect over
the premixed zone causing higher HRR and also reduced ignition delay period. This effect is due to
superior mixing ability because of reduction in fuel droplet size. The highest HRR was obtained for
TRCC22-200 bar (89.5J/°CA) and TRCC22- 240 bar (85 J/°CA). For TRCC 22-180 bar and TRCC-220
bar, the peak heat release rate was around 71.2 J/°CA and 82.3 J/°CA. It could be because of loss of
momentum of find fuel droplets at higher injection pressure and reduction in fuel droplet size.

Figure 5.48 Cumulative Heat release rate with varying Crank angle

77
 CHRR also follows same pattern as that of HRR. Highest CHRR is obtained for TRCC 22-200
followed by TRCC 22-240, TRCC 22-220 and TRCC 22-180. For same nozzle profile at high pressure
more amount of combustible mixture was formed because of higher degree of atomization owing to
improved combustion rate thus leading to higher heat release rate. Other injection pressures 240 bar, 180
bar and 220 bar resulted in dropdown values owing to inferior combustion, poor atomization mixing
and vaporization rate of fuel.

5.6.3 Emission Characteristics

Figure 5.49 shows the variation of HC emission of diesel engine operation with HPF with
different injection pressure mode. HC emission for diesel is 25 ppm while for TRCC22-180 it is
14.69ppm, for BB-HCC it is16.06 ppm, for TRCC22-220 it is 11.66ppm, for TRCC22-200 it is
12.03ppm and for TRCC-240 it is 13.88ppm.

Figure 5.49 Hydrocarbon with varying Engine load

Drop in HC emission is observed for TRCC geometry in comparison with HCC and it can be
attributed to availability of oxygenated contents in the blends and improved swirl formation. For
TRCC22-220 bar, the HC range obtained were about 10.60 to 11.66ppm, for TRCC22-200 it is
11.54 to 12.03ppm and for TRCC22-180 it is 13.80 to 14.69ppm respectively. The minimum values
obtained can be attributed to smaller droplet size and enhanced spray penetration followed by higher in-
cylinder temperature which

78
is available for complete combustion process (Jindal et al.2010). Some contrary result were obtained as
in the findings of Belagur et al. (2009), Deep et al. (2017), Kannan et al. (2012), Shameer et al. (2018),
Sayin et al.(2012), Purushothaman&Nagarajanet al.(2009), Imtenanet al.(2015) and Nanthagopal et al
.(2016).

Figure 5.50 Carbon monoxide with varying Engine load

Figure 5.50 represents Carbon monoxide emission of diesel engine operated with various fuels
at different injection pressures and combustion bowl modification. Presence of CO emission at exhaust
is an evidence of inefficient or incomplete combustion. At maximum load the diesel fuel ended up with
0.053ppm followed by 0.02756ppm for TRCC22-180, 0.03ppm for BB-HCC, 0.015ppm for TRCC22-
220, 0.019 ppm for TRCC22-200, and 0.026 ppm for TRCC22-240. Drop in CO emissions were
observed which is due to the combined effect of oxygenated fuel and nano additive. Further oxidation
was enhanced by swirl inducing piston bowl. Results were further improved because of heat inside the
combustion bowl, availability of oxygen in combustion zone and fine droplet size of fuel precursors.
Diesel fuel has more CO emission which may be due in efficient utilization of air by atomized fuel
that led to partial combustion and increased CO emission. TRCC22-220 bar resulted is less emission of
CO than any other. These trends are in accordance with the findings of Belagur et al .(2009), Deep et
al. (2017), Kannan et al. (2012), Shameer et al. (2018), Sayin et al. (2012), Purushothaman & Nagarajan
et al. (2009), Jindal et al. (2010), Imtenan et al.(2015) and Nanthagopal et al .(2016).

79
 Figure 5.51 Carbon dioxide with varying Engine load

Figure 5.51 shows the variation of carbon dioxide emission for various injection pressures of
the engine operation. CO2 emission is an evidence of complete combustion of the hydrocarbon fuel.
Diesel fuel shows reduced CO2 emission than any other blend which shows suppressed combustion. For
TRCC22-180 bar, the emissions are slightly higher than diesel. On further increasing the injection
pressure, CO2 emission increased

5.6.4 Summary

The purpose of this research work is to enhance engine behaviour on operation with best
blend (BB). From previous chapter, the optimum injection time for fuel was identified. In the present
work along with optimum injecting timing, various injecting pressure were checked for biofuel which
was identified as best blend in previous experiments. 5.1% improvement in thermal efficiency is
observed for TRCC22- 220bar in comparison with diesel fuel because of finer droplet size of fuel, while
other fuels lag due to poor penetration and slower air motion. Emission reduction such as HC, CO and
smoke were observed for 220 bar. It was due to availability of hot air for combustion, high swirl velocity
and good atomization of fuel droplets. It also supported for quick evaporation and better mixing of air-
fuel mixture. Hence better combustion occurs with increased NOx and CO2 marginally. Higher degree
of atomization was reflected in high cylinder pressure & heat release rate. From the present study it can
be concluded that the problems identified in previous work was minimized because of injection
pressure modification. It was clear that, the TRCC22-220 bar is an optimum and best fuel model among
all in this entire research work.

80