Performance, Emission and Combustion Analysis on Single Cylinder CI Engine using Dual Bio-Diesel with and without Hydrogen Induction

CONTENT

Acknowledgement

Abstract

List of Tables

List of Figures

Abbreviations

Nomenclature

Notations

CHAPTER – 1
Introduction
Introduction to biofuel
Aim and Strategy
Objectives
Bio-Fuel
Waste Cooking Oil as Biodiesel
Implication of WCO Reuse
Palm Stearin Oil as Biodiesel
Hydrogen as Bio-fuel
Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Electrolyzers
Alkaline Electrolyzers
Solid Oxide Electrolyzers

CHAPTER – 2
Literature Review
Introduction
Waste Cooking Oil Biodiesel
Palm Stearin Oil Biodiesel
Hydrogen with biodiesel blends of diesel
Outcome of Literature Review
Research Gaps Identified from the Literature Review

CHAPTER – 3
Fabrication Of Experimental Setup
Experimental Setup
Engine Specification
Measurement of Various Parameters
Compression Ratio Adjustment
Injection Opening Pressure Adjustment

CHAPTER – 4
Experimentation
Test Phase – 1
Test Phase – 2
Test Phase – 3
Test Phase – 4
Experimental Flow Chart

CHAPTER – 5
Experimental Work And Data Accusation
Data Accusation and Calculation
Brake Power Calculation
Brake Mean Effective Pressure Calculation
Mass of Fuel Calculation
BTE Calculation for B20
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption Calculation
BTE Calculation for B20+6lpmH2
Energy Equivalent of fuel constituents
Energy Share by Fuel Constituents
Brake Specific Energy Consumption Calculation

CHAPTER – 6
CFD Analysis
Role of CFD analysis in CI engine simulation
2Combustion simulation inputs
Geometry of IC Engine
FE Model
Boundary Conditions

CHAPTER – 7
Results and Discussion
Test Phase - 1
Case – I for 200bar
Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – I of Test Phase – 1
Case – II for 225bar
Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – II of Test Phase – 1
Case – III for 250bar
Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – III of Test Phase – 1
Attributes of Test Phase – 1 for 17CR
Optimum Loading of Test Phase – 1
Optimum Injection Opening Pressure of Test Phase – 1
Combustion Characteristic of Test Phase – 1
Test Phase – 2
Case – I for 200bar
Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – I of Test Phase – 2
Case – II for 225bar
Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – II of Test Phase – 2
Case – III for 250bar
Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – III of Test Phase – 2
Attributes of Test Phase – 2
Optimum Loading of Test Phase – 2
Optimum Injection Opening Pressure of Test Phase – 2
Combustion Characteristic of Test Phase – 2
Test Phase – 3
Case – I for 200bar
Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – I of Test Phase – 3
Case – II for 225bar
Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – II of Test Phase – 3
Case – III for 250bar
Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – III of Test Phase – 3
Attributes of Test Phase – 3
Optimum Loading of Test Phase – 3
Optimum Injection Opening Pressure of Test Phase – 3
Combustion Characteristic of Test Phase – 3
Test Phase – 4
Case – I for 200bar
Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – I of Test Phase – 4
Case – II for 225bar
Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – II of Test Phase – 4
Case – III for 250bar
Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – III of Test Phase – 4
Attributes of Test Phase – 4
Optimum Loading of Test Phase – 4
Optimum Injection Opening Pressure of Test Phase – 4
Combustion Characteristic of Test Phase – 4
Optimum compression ratio of Test Phase - 1, 2, 3 & 4
Simulated Results and Comparison
Pure Diesel
Bio diesel-B20
Bio diesel-B20 + 4lpm
Bio diesel-B20 + 6lpm
Bio diesel-B20 + 8lpm

CHAPTER – 8
References
Appendix I, Specifications of Test Engine
Appendix II. Engine Instrumentation
Appendix III, Fuel Properties Test Reports
Appendix IV, Bio-diesel Invoice
Appendix V, Calibration Report
Appendix VI, Uncertainty Analysis
Appendix VII, Papers Published in International Journals
1. (IJAME), University Malaysia Pahang Publishing. ISSN: 2229-8649 (Print); ISSN: 2180-1606 (Online); Volume 14, Issue 4 pp. 4634-4648 December 2017.
2. (IJRASET), ISSN: 2321 – 9653, P. No. 1563 to 1569, Volume 5 Issue – XI November 2017. S J Impact Factor: 6.887

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work described in this thesis, entitled “ Performance, Emission and Combustion Analysis on Single Cylinder CI Engine using Dual Bio-Diesel with and without Hydrogen Induction ” Which is being submitted by me in partial fulfilment for the award of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in the Department of Mechanical Engineering to Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University Hyderabad (Telangana State) – 500 085, is the result of investigation carried out by me under the Guidance of Dr. Mohammed Yousuf Ali, Professor & Principal, Avanthi Institute of Engineering& Technology, Hyderabad, and Guidance of Dr. M. Manzoor Hussain, Professor & Director of Admissions JNTUH College of Engineering-Hyderabad.

This is entirely an original research work and has not been submitted for the award of any Degree/Diploma to any other university.

Hyderabad

Date:

Signature

Md. Fakhruddin Hasan Nizami

Roll No.:1003PH1572

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that thesis entitled “ Performance, Emission and Combustion Analysis on Single Cylinder CI Engine using Dual Bio-Diesel with and without Hydrogen Induction ” being submitted to the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kukatpally Hyderabad, by Md.Fakhruddin Hasan Nizami for the award of Doctor of Philosophy in the faculty of Mechanical Engineering is a bonafied record of research work carried out by him under our guidance and supervision. The contents of this thesis have not been submitted to any other university for the award of any degree.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Mohammed Yousuf Ali, Professor and Principal, Avanthi Institute of Engineering & Technology, Hyderabad, for taking me as his research scholar. I am grateful to him for his cooperation, encouragement and successful guidance throughout this research work.

I am greatly indebted to Dr. M.Manzoor Hussain,Professor and Director of Admissions JNTUH for accepting me as his research scholar and for his patience, insights, inspiring guidance, whole hearted support and readiness to spare his valuable time to guide during my research work.

I thank Mr. H. Pradeep Reddy, Director of Ramtech Manufacturing Industries, phase–III, industrial estate, Cherlapally, Hyderabad who extended help in CFD analysis to validate the results.

I also thank Mr. K. Krishna Rao, Secretary and Correspondent Methodist College of Engineering and Technology, Abids-Hyderabad, who has sponsored this research.

I also thanks to Management and Dr. Syed Azam Pasha Quadri, Professor and Head of Mechanical Engineering Department, Lords Institute of Engineering & Technology, for providing their research facilities for experimentation.

I am thankful to my parents, family members for their unconditional support throughout my Ph.D. work. Finally, I want to thank everyone who helped me directly or indirectly in the completion of research work.

[Md. Fakhruddin Hasan Nizami]

ABSTRACT

The growing demand and low production of indigenous crude along with inadequate refining capacity has forced India to look for alternative fuels to sustain the economic development. India is one among the largest petro-diesel consuming and importing country i.e. about 70% of its demand. Violently fluctuating world prices of oil have been a destabilizing element for the balance of country’s economy and external debt.

Centralized power generation are insufficient to encounter energy necessities of decentralized population of rural area, due to low loads, long distribution lines, power shortages, low and fluctuating voltage and low reliability. Decentralized system using renewable sources of energy could go a long way in meeting the energy needs of the decentralized communities.

Main source of economy in our country is irrigation. Irrigation has to be developed on a great measure, which requires energy to run various implements. The higher use of petrol/diesel in agronomy and transport sector has resulted in environmental degradation. Alternate fuels are being explored world-wide to reduce environmental pollution. To reduce the reliance on petroleum based fuels, bio-diesels are gaining attention world-wide.

In this research work diesel is blended with treble alternate fuels i.e. dual biodiesel and a biofuel, comprising waste cooking oil biodiesel, palm stearin biodiesel and hydrogen, which are tested on single cylinder CI engine for performance, emission and combustion Analysis. Compression ratio and injection opening pressure are varied to get best performance, emission and combustion characteristic.

At first dual biodiesel (WCOBD + PSBD) blended in diesel for different proportion will be tested in comparison with diesel as standalone fuel for different compression ratios and fuel injection pressures, then the best biodiesel-diesel proportion so obtain will be further tested with hydrogen at different rate of induction for performance and emission, optimal treble bio-fuel will be evaluated for combustion characteristic.

PAPERS PUBLISHED IN INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS

1. Md. Fakhruddin H. N., Dr. M.Y. Ali, Dr. Manzoor Hussain M. “Experimental Investigation on CI Engine for Performance, Emission and Combustion Characteristics of Dual Biodiesel Blended in Diesel”. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), ISSN: 2321 – 9653, P. No. 1563 to 1569, Volume 5 Issue – XI November 2017. S J Impact Factor: 6.887
2. H.N. Md. Fakhruddin, Mohammed Yousuf Ali and M. Manzoor Hussain. “Analysis of Hydrogen Enriched Treble Biofuel Blended with Diesel for Performance, Emission and Combustion Characteristics on CI Engine”. International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering (IJAME), University Malaysia Pahang Publishing. ISSN: 2229-8649 (Print); ISSN: 2180-1606 (Online); Volume 14, Issue 4 pp. 4634-4648 December 2017.

PAPERS PRESENTED IN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES

1. Md. Fakhruddin Hasan Nizami, Srinivas Ragahavan, M.Y. Ali, Dr. Manzoor Hussain “Waste cooking oil as feedstock to produce biodiesel & Saponification reaction as by product” International Conference on Trend Setting Innovations in Chemical Sciences & Technology – Application in Pharma Industry (TSCST-APT), Under TEQIP – II @ Institute of Science & Technology JNTUH, Hyderabad 16th – 18th December 2015.
2. Md. Fakhruddin H.N, Md. Samiuddin Siddiqui, Dr. Mohammed Yousuf Ali, Dr. M. Manzoor Hussain “Experiment on Single Cylinder CI Engine with Various Proportion of WCOBD in Diesel” International conference on Paradigms in Engineering & Technology (ICPET 2016) in association with Indian Society for Technical Education, ISTE-Delhi & the world academy of research in science and engineering (WARSE) organized by Methodist College of Engineering & Technology, Abids Hyderabad Telangana State India, on 2nd & 3rd March 2016.

PAPERS PRESENTED IN NATIONAL CONFERENCES

1) Md. Fakhruddin H.N. “Hydrogen Generation” A two day National Conference on Emerging Trends & Technologies in Mechanical Engineering, Sanketika 2K11, Organized by Lords Institute of Engineering & Technology, ISO: 9001-2008 Certified, Himayathsagar, Hyderabad – 8. On 17th& 18th March 2011.
2) Md. Fakhruddin Hasan Nizami, M.Y. Ali, Manzoor Hussain M. “Performance Test of Diesel Engine for Waste Cooking Oil Biodiesel Blended with Diesel” National Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering & Technology, ETET – 2016. Organized by Nawab Shah Alam Khan College of Engineering & Technology, Malakpet – Hyderabad. 17th – 18th December 2016.

LIST OF TABLES

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

LIST OF FIGURES

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

ABBREVIATIONS

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

CI Compression Ignition

CO CO (%vol)

CO2 Carbon Dioxide (%vol)

CV Calorific Value of Fuel (kJ/kg)

D Diesel

DI Direct Injection

Deg. Degree

HC, UHC Hydrocarbons, Unburnt HC (ppm)

H2O Water

H2 Hydrogen

IMEP Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (bar)

MNRE Ministry of New and Renewable Energy

NA Not Applicable

NHRR Net Heat Release Rate (J/deg CA)

NOx, Oxides of Nitrogen (ppm)

NFSSA National Food Safety and Authority

O2 Oxygen (% vol)

ppm Parts per Million

PS Palm Stearin

RMS Root Mean Square

RTD Resistance Temperature Detector

SI Spark Ignition

TDC Top Dead Centre (Degrees)

B10, B20 & B30 10%, 20% and 30% biodiesel respectively

NOMENCLATURE

% vol. Percentage volume

F/A Fuel-Air Ratio

BTDC Before Top Dead Centre

BTE BTE (%)

BMEP Brake Mean Effective Pressure (bar)

BSEC BrakeSpecific Energy Consumption (kJ/kWh)

BSFC Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (kg/kWh)

BP Brake Power (kW)

CN Cetane Number

CR Compression Ratio

DAQ Data Acquisition

Fig. Figure

IOP Injection Opening Pressure

LPH Litre per Hour lpm Litres per Minutes

PM Particulate Matter

RPM Revolutions per Minute

Vol. Eff. Vol. Eff. (%)

VCR Variable Compression Ratio

WCO Waste Cooking Oil

WCOB Waste Cooking Oil Biodiesel 5WCOBD 5% Waste Cooking Oil Biodiesel 5PSBD 5% Palm stearin Biodiesel 90D 90% Diesel 10WCOBD 10%Waste Cooking Oil Biodiesel 10PSBD 10%Palm Stearin Biodiesel 80D 80%Diesel 15WCOBD 15%Waste Cooking Oil Biodiesel 15PSBD 15%Palm stearin Biodiesel 70D 70%Diesel

NOTATIONS

A Area (m2)

Cp Specific Heat at Constant Pressure (kJ/kgK)

Cv Specific Heat at Constant Volume (kJ/kgK) d Diameter (m)

L Length dof Hydrogen

N Engine Speed (rpm) n Number of Sample Values p Pressure (bar)

R Characteristic Gas Constant (0.287 kJ/kg-K)

T1 Engine water inlet temperature (K)

T2 Engine water outlet temperature (K)

T3 Calorimeter water inlet temperature (K)

T4 Calorimeter water outlet temperature (K)

T5 Exhaust gas inlet temperature (K)

T6 Exhaust gas outlet temperature (k) v Volume (m3) γ Ratio Of Specific Heats θ Crank Angle (Degrees) σ Standard Deviation

CHAPTER – 1

INTRODUCTION

In today’s automobile world it is desirable challenge to build an engine having more power generation and less fuel consumption, which are desired parameters for higher efficiency of engine. For getting more power engine wants extra fuel and if less fuel is looked-for the power transmitted will be less. In orthodox engines the heat energy used is 30% of produced energy and left out energy nearly 70% is going as waste 1. That means, to get excess power from engine the fuel resources are wasting 70% of produced energy.

1.1 Introduction to biofuel

Growth in energy requirement in all segment is rising unabated due to increasing urbanization, living habits and expanding habitation with stabilization not before mid of current century 2.

At the present time dual fuel method is utmost extensively implemented with biodiesel blend and gaseous fuel. In present work, dual biodiesel, that is biodiesels prepared from WCO and palm stearin along with hydrogen are experimented in CI-engine to reduce emission and increase the performance 3.

Biodiesel being biodegradable is considered less harmful to environment, when spilled and produce lesser tailpipe emissions. Vanishing of petroleum wells and environmental issues has stimulated interest in alternative sources. Bio diesel extracted as of animal fat and vegetable oil via transesterification with methanol or ethanol may substitute petroleum diesel, since it is renewable, biodegradable, oxygenated and environmental friendly.

1.2 Aim and Strategy

Used cooking oil is considered as waste, where as its strength full liquid fuel, remains highly interesting. Less percentage of sulphur and SO2 gases apart from reducing the labour of government in disposing of waste, maintaining public sewer and treating oily waste-water, also helps in reducing the production cost of biodiesel. Kitchen waste cooking oil to biodiesel and transesterification is utmost cost worthy method for this alteration 4.

The strategy is to blend WCOBD with other biodiesel from various different feed stock i.e. palm stearin in pure diesel and test run engine to evaluate performance, emission and combustion. In order to improve combustion and increase performance on par with pure diesel, third biofuel in the form of hydrogen in inducted in air intake manifold and emissions, performance and combustion are analysed.

Above logic is applied to four different phase of experiment conducted at different compression ratio and at various injection pressure. Optimal compound of variables are determined and affirm using CFD analysis.

1.3 Objective

The present research work is conceded with objective of increasing the performance of CI engine by reducing emissions with application of different fuel blend ratios of WCO and PS biodiesel (5WCOBD + 5PSBD + 90D), (10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D) and (15WCOBD + 15PSBD + 70D) and induction of hydrogen (4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm), injector opening pressures (200, 225 and 250 bar) and compression ratios (17, 17.5, 18 and 18.5). All the experiments are executed for constant speed of 1500 rpm and injection timing being 230 BTDC. The experimental outcome are analysed and characteristics of combustion and emissions are justified.

The mixture of both biodiesel and hydrogen as a fuel under various operating conditions such as injection opening pressures and compression ratio in case of CI engines affects the performance, combustion and emission.

1.4 Bio-Fuels

Bio-fuels used in this research are from different feed stock i.e. waste cooking oil, palm stearin and hydrogen. Priority for food security is over fuel/energy safety and occupying land from agrarian creation to development of oil-shaping products is still debatable. WCO is possible, neat and clean fuel, represents an incredible prospect to meet its rising vitality necessities without hurting rural land.

1.4.1 Waste Cooking Oil a s Biodiesel

Waste Cooking/Vegetable Oil as Climatic Change reducing strategy, is that at individual end, WCO originated from the restaurants/households may be collected to use it for automobile as alternate fuel with minimum modifications. After collection, oil needs to be processed i.e. it should be filtered additional processed to lessen its viscosity.

The reduced value of viscosity can be found in two methods first by attaching a heating mechanism to the fuel line or tank. The byproduct of biodiesel processing is simple glycerin or glycerol, which can be nourished to fertilizer or used for soap making 5.

At the initial to frame regulation in this direction, ministry of new and renewable energy (MNRE) has questioned the National Food Safety and Authority (NFSSA) to standardise for use of cooking oils. Conversely India doesn’t devise any regulation to prescribe till how many times cooking oil can be reused. It, thereby, stop government authorities/agencies from taking punitive claim against eateries such as food-courts, restaurants which are recycling bad quality cooking oil, which are harmful for human health. Food cooked in oil reused has bad impact on one’s health, on the contrary, the same oil can become environment friendly if re-processed and converted into bio-diesel. Around 28 % of European logistics trucks run on biodiesel 6.

According to Sudhir et al., 7 biodiesel from feedstock of waste cooking oil is the greenest and most eco-friendly liquid fuel available, because primary ingredient being a by-product i.e. post-consumer waste.

- Performance of pure WCO-biodiesel was only slightly less at part loads in comparison to the base line diesel fuel.
- At higher load engine performance reduce by approximately 1 to 1.5 %.
- Thermal efficiency of WCO biodiesel bear a resemblance to the thermal efficiency of fresh oil biodiesel.
- From emission standpoint, the NOx, CO and CO2 emissions were approximately same as that of base line diesel emissions.
- HC emissions of biodiesel from WCO are less than base line diesel fuel 7.

Waste cooking oil is a bio-fuel whereas high Speed diesel is a fossil fuel. Bio-fuels are also advantageous when ecological problems are taken into account. Using WCO pollution can be controlled to certain extent. This is cheap and renewable; are safe to store and non-volatile, biodegradable, release comparatively less carbon-di-oxide and have distinct exhaust.

1.4.1.1 Implication of WCO Reuse

Repeated consumption of WCO after each fry is very unsafe to human health, i.e. increases the danger of failure of cardiovascular and liver, can cause cancer and other diseases 8.

If waste cooking oil is not properly preserved and stored after cooling then bacteria may fed on food elements left in the oil. If oil is not accurately stored i.e. be not refrigerated then oil converts anaerobic and the formation of Clostridium botulinum takes place, which effects botulism, which is a possibly fatal food poison. Stale oil contain free molecule which can damage cells, increase cancer risk, and affect food quality.

It is nature’s gift that nose can identify stale oil. Waste cooking oil is handled in a way that has not in one way or the other affect the environmental and human welfare. WCO collection and recycle is among the most common practice in developed countries like the United States, EU, Japan, and Taiwan 8.

Table 1.1 Properties of diesel and waste vegetable oil 9

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1.4.2 Palm Stearin Oil as Biodiesel

Palm stearinis likely to turn out to be a favourable biodiesel production feedstock. It is not possible to use for edible purpose due to its high melting point which ranges from 440C to 560C 10.

Palm stearinis the solid fragment ofpalm oilwhich is produced by means of partial crystallization at control temperature 11. Palm stearinis more reducible in composition thanpalm olein which is liquid part of palm oil. Vastly in terms of solid fat content 12.

Palm stearinis a natural hard stock used for making trans-free fats. Apart from edible purpose, palm stearin is recycled for making soaps and formulating animal feed as well. It is also a very good feed stock for oleo chemical 13.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 1.1 Palm Stearin

On occasions the palm olein is fractionated again to additional liquid part called super palm olein. Super palm olein could with stand cool temperature than palm olein before they cloud or solidify 14.

Palm oil is semi-solid at temperature of 200C. Liquid part is physically separated from solid part by fractionation. After fractionation liquid part is called as palm olein, and is known as cooking oils.

Morbid oxidised compounds are formed as oils are very perceptive to attack by air and moisture, chemical antioxidant is also added to the oil to improve self-life. Since hydrogenation process is executed at high temperature, the fatty acids of this oil is transformed into the trans fatty acid (TFA) which is harmful to health, and is referred to as trans fats 15.

1.4.3 Hydrogen as Bio-Fuel

There are 4 main sources in commercial production of hydrogen 16 which are stated below.

1. Natural gas 48%
2. Oil 30%
3. Coal 18%
4. Electrolysis 4%

The Hydrogen is generated from non-fossil sources, renewable, non-toxic and also results in complete combustion, so it is a potential fuel to escape from the crisis of oil exhaustion.

It has many potential uses, is safe to manufacture and is environment friendly due to these aspects Hydrogen can be stated as one of the suitable alternative fuel. Fossil fuel is the major source of industrial hydrogen 17. According to Vinod et al., 2013 H2 combustion is neat, and possess no

- greenhouse gases,
- ozone layer depletion chemicals,
- acid rain ingredients and
- Or less pollution 18.

Electrolysis is a hopeful option for H2 production from renewable resources, i.e. use of electricity to split H2O into H+ and O2. Reaction to split H2O into H+ and O2 takes place in a unit called an electrolyser. Electrolyser consists of anode and cathode, each separated by an electrolyte. Different electrolyser function in differently, this is due to different type of material present.

1.4.3.1 Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Electrolyser

At the cathode, H+ combines with e- from the external circuit to form H2 gas.

Anode Reaction: 2H2O → O2+ 4H++ 4e-

Cathode Reaction: 4H++ 4e- 2H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 1.2 Polymer Electrolyte Membrane 19.

1.4.3.2 Alkaline Electrolyser

It transport OH-through electrolyte from cathode to anode and H2 is generated on cathode side. Electrolyser with liquid alkaline solution of Na or KOH as electrolyte are commercially available since years. New approach of using solid alkaline exchange membrane as the electrolyte are promising.

1.4.3.3 Solid Oxide Electrolyser

Solid ceramic material is electrolyte that conducts negatively charged oxygen ions (O2-) at high temperature, generate H2.

Solid oxide membrane to function properly, it must operate at high temperature.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

And to minimize electrical energy need to produce hydrogen from H2o 18, hydrogen assisted burningis the process of use of a mixture of H2 and conventional HC fuel in anIC engine, typically in automobile sector 19.

CHAPTER – 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Waste cooking oil sources can be used as environmental-friendly feedstock for biodiesel production since they have originated from already existing oil sources. This approach reduces the environmental pollution that would otherwise have been released due to their production. Moreover, waste cooking oils may cause environmental hazards and result in penalties if they are not treated and disposed properly. In this chapter literature review is done till the 2017 papers and the gap in the work are identified and the problem is defined.

2 .1 Introduction

As the renewable fuel industry continues to grow; energy-efficient, low-cost and environmental-friendly processes will support their successful commercialization and sustained growth. In order to reduce production costs and make local biodiesel production competitive with petroleum diesel, low cost feedstock, such as non-edible oils, waste frying oils and animal fats could be used 20.

The 48 % rise in global world energy consumption signifies the acute need for alternative energy sources to satisfy the rapidly rising demand 21.

Edible vegetable oils such as canola, soybean, and corn have been used for biodiesel production and are proven diesel substitutes [22, 23]. However, a major obstacle in the commercialization of biodiesel production from edible vegetable oils is their high production cost, which is due to the demand for human consumption. Reducing the cost of the feedstock is necessary for biodiesel’s long- term commercial viability. One way to reduce the cost of this fuel is to use less expensive feedstock including waste cooking oils and vegetable oils that are non-edible and/or require low harvesting costs. Waste cooking oil (WCO), which is much less expensive than edible vegetable oil, is a promising alternative to edible vegetable oil 24.

Waste cooking oil and fats set forth significant disposal problems in many parts of the world. This environmentally-threatening problem could be turned into both economic and environmental benefit by proper utilization and management of waste cooking oil as a fuel substitute. Many developed countries have set policies that penalize the disposal of waste cooking oil into waste drainage 25.

Review papers are group in three categories for their being blended with pure diesel.

1. Waste cooking oil biodiesel
2. Palm stearin biodiesel
3. Hydrogen with biodiesel blends of diesel

2.2 Waste Cooking Oil Biodiesel

Toukoniitty B et al., 26 carried out Transesterification of waste cooking oils by conventional heating processes which significantly lower the rates of reaction with the requirement of severe operating conditions. The conventional techniques based on use of stirring typically utilize temperatures in the range of 70–200oC, pressures in the range of 6–10atm, and reaction times of up to 70h for achieving conversions in the range of 90–95% based on the type of feedstock used, the type and concentration of the catalyst, and the percentage excess of alcohol.

Veljkovic VB et al., 27 observed that the biodiesel processing costs from these low-cost feedstock sources can be reduced by utilizing energy-efficient, non-conventional process heating and mixing techniques such as ultrasonic. Ultrasonic dramatically decreases the footprint of the process reactors and facilitate precise and optimized process control.

B. Freedman et al., 28 experiment have shown ultrasonic to have increase the rate of the process reactions by orders of magnitude due to increased heat/mass transfer phenomena and thermal/specific a thermal effects of mixing.

Shilpi Das et al., 29 and for many researches WCO biodiesel showed net energy ratio (NER) of 5-6 compared to 2-3 for rapeseed or soybean biodiesel and 0.8 for petro diesel. The benefits of utilizing waste cooking oils to produce biodiesel are the minimal efforts and anticipation of environment pollution 29.

Demirbas A. et al., 30 experimental results of the study reveal that the WCO biodiesel has similar characteristics to that of diesel. The brake thermal efficiency, carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbon and smoke opacity are observed to be lower in the case of WCO biodiesel blends than diesel. On the other hand specific energy consumption and oxides of nitrogen of WCO biodiesel blends are found to be higher than diesel. In addition combustion characteristics of all biodiesel blends showed similar trends when compared to that of conventional diesel.

Kinast, J.A. et al., 31 study reveals that the use of waste cooking oil in place of virgin oil to make biodiesel is an effective technique to reduce the raw material cost because it is estimated to be about half the cost of virgin oil. The use of waste cooking oil could also help to solve the difficulty of waste oil disposal.

Supple et al., 32 tested fuel mixtures consisting of 100% petroleum-based diesel, 100% bio-diesel, 50/50% (diesel/biodiesel) and 70/30% (diesel/ biodiesel). The study revealed that the performance of the engine when powered by biodiesel and its blends with petroleum diesel is very comparable to its performance when powered by 100% petroleum diesel the engine torque improved for all the fuel samples at compression ratio 17 compared with low compression ratio. As the load increases engine torque increases to the maximum between 50% and 70% load then decreases for all the fuel samples. Specific fuel consumption for all fuels under review is continuously increasing with the increase in load. The specific fuel consumption for 100% biodiesel, 50/50% mixture, and 70/30% (diesel / biodiesel mixture) compares favourably well with that of petroleum-based diesel fuel. The brake thermal efficiency of biodiesel (WCO-ME/EE) is lower than that of diesel at 100% load condition. Biodiesel showed higher BSEC (Brake Specific Energy Consumption) than that of diesel fuel for all loads conditions. This is due to the lower calorific value of biodiesel. The lower calorific value and higher viscosity of biodiesel lead to the lower brake thermal efficiency.

The value of higher viscosity causes poor fuel atomization during the injection process that increases the engine deposits and increases more energy consumption to pump the fuel which wears fuel pump elements and injectors 33.

Lapuerta et al., 34 showed that the performance of the pure WCO biodiesel was only marginally lesser at part loads compared to diesel fuel performance. At higher loads the engine suffers from closely 1–1.5% brake thermal efficiency loss. However the thermal performance of WCO biodiesel closely bears a resemblance to the performance of fresh oil biodiesel.

Armas et al., 35 tested WCO biodiesel in a DI commercial diesel engine either pure or blends with diesel fuel was obtained the biodiesel concentration in the blend was increased, the BSFC increased. The efficiency of the engine remained unaffected at each tested operation mode.

Azman et al., 36 extensive review on the effect of biodiesel fuels on CI engine reveals that biodiesel can be used as a blended fuel in CI engines without any modification to the engines, and emissions found in most of the investigations, HC, CO, smoke and particulate emissions are reduced. However, there is a slight increase in NOx emission.

2.3 Palm Stearin Biodiesel

Pantzaris et al., 37 in a pocketbook of palm oil uses, represent that Palm Stearin is the solid fraction obtained by fractionation of palm oil after crystallization at a controlled temperature. It is not used directly for food purposes due to its high melting point ranging from 44 to 56oC .The physical characteristics of Palm Stearin differ significantly from those of palm olein. It contains 1–2 % myristic acid, 47–74 % palmitic acid, 4–6 % stearic acid, 16–37 % oleic acid, and 3–10 % linoleic acid.

Kok et al., 38 stated that high degree of saturation of PS poses problems for the manufacture of edible fats such as margarine and shortening, as it confers low plasticity to the end product, thus limiting commercial exploitation of this material.

Gumus M et al., 39 concluded that increasing compression ratio enhances density of air charge in cylinder. The more density provides the higher angles of spray cone and this result in increase in the amount of air entrainment into the fuel spray. The more air in the fuel spray contributes completion of combustion and increases the cylinder gas pressure.

M. Gumus et al., 39 concluded that because of the vaporization of the fuel accumulated during ignition delay, at the beginning a negative HR is observed and after combustion, this behavior becomes positive. After the ID, premixed fuel air mixture burns rapidly, followed by diffusion combustion, where the burn rate is controlled by fuel–air mixture. It can be observed that combustion starts earlier for biodiesel blends under all engine operating conditions and it becomes more prominent with higher biodiesel addition in the blends. The premixed combustion HR is higher for diesel owing to higher volatility and better mixing of diesel with air. Another reason may possibly be the longer ignition delay of diesel, which leads to a larger amount of fuel accumulation in the combustion chamber at the time of the premixed combustion stage, leading to a higher rate of heat release.

M. Gumus et al., 39 observed that, the lower calorific value of biodiesel reduces rate of heat release. Location of the maximum rate of heat release as crank angle for biodiesel and its blends with diesel fuel is earlier than that of diesel fuel.

Kumar et al., 40 Rate of heat release decreased with the increase of biodiesel in the blends. From the figures it is clear that the maximum ROHR of biodiesel was lower than that of diesel fuel owing to lower premixed burning of biodiesel. At the time of ignition, fuel air mixture prepared for combustion decreases with addition of biodiesel content in the blend due to lower volatility, ID and higher viscosity. Therefore the premixed HR decreases with the addition of biodiesel content in the blend.

Jindal et al., 41 observed that with increasing injection pressures in the C.I engine, ignition delay was reduced and the fuel may be completely burnt to produce the large amount of heat energy. Change of design parameters such as compression ratio (CR) and fuel injection pressure (IP) on the performance with consider to fuel consumption (BSFC), brake thermal efficiency (BTHE) and emissions characteristics of CO, CO2, HC, NOx and Smoke opacity as biofuel and its compared to the diesel. It is found that the increase of compression ratio and injection pressure increases the BTHE and reduces BSFC while lower emissions were occurs.

S. Mahalingam et al., 42 noticed that the NOx emissions of the fuels continuously increased with the various engine load conditions using the different injection pressures.

2.4 Hydrogen with biodiesel blends of diesel

Singh et al., 43 stated that hydrogen possesses many superior combustion and emission characteristics over other liquid or gases fuels. For example, due to the absence of carbon atom, hydrogen combustion does not produce any harmful emissions such as HC, CO, sulfur oxides, or organic acids.

Korakianitis et al., 44 stated that hydrogen has a high diffusivity which creates uniformly distributed fuel air mixture, and wide flammability range which permits the use of ultra-lean combustion.

H. An et al., 45 concluded that due to the faster flame speed of hydrogen, the combustion duration of hydrogen–air mixture could be significantly shortened compared to other fuel–air mixtures.

Crookes et al., 46 observed that together with the high heating value of hydrogen, the heat release rate (HRR), pressure rise rate and peak cylinder pressure could be significantly increased, which translate to improved power output and increased thermal efficiency.

Sukjit et al., 47 noticed that high flame propagation speed of hydrogen together with the slightly increased ignition delay could result in a higher pressure rise rate and peak cylinder pressure. The direct result of this improved performance is the slightly increased NOx emissions.

R. Anand et al., 48 showed the slight Variations in the thermal efficiency of the biodiesel-ethanol blends are mainly due to the lower calorific value of ethanol and biodiesel when compared to diesel.

Huseyin et al., 49 further concluded that, higher viscosity and slow vaporization of biodiesel present in these blends leads to inferior combustion of biodiesel which causes reduction in brake thermal efficiency.

Suresh et al., 50 showed lowest value of brake thermal efficiency was noted may be due to the large amount of bio diesel supplied to the engine when compared to diesel in order to maintain the equal energy input to the engine. The high viscosity of the blended fuels inhibits the proper atomization, fuel vaporization, and combustion. This trend is also due to the combined effect of lower calorific value, higher density, and viscosity of the blended fuel. These results are in accordance with experimental work done by the previous researchers.

Muralidharan et al., 51 experimentally studied that biodiesel fuel is delivered into the engine on a volumetric basis per stroke; thus, larger quantities of biodiesel are fed into the engine. Therefore, to produce the same power, more biodiesel fuel is needed because biodiesel has a lower calorific value compared to diesel fuel.

Qi et al., 52 stated that BSFC is the ratio between mass flow of the tested fuel and effective power and BSFC of diesel engine depends on the relationship among volumetric fuel injection system, fuel density, viscosity and lower heating value.

M. Mofijur et al., 53 observed that the BSFC for biodiesel-blended fuels is higher compared to diesel. The reason for the higher BSFC of biodiesels can be attributed to the combined effects of the relative fuel density, viscosity and heating value of the blends.

Lei Zhu et al., 54 observed brake specific energy consumption (BSEC) is a more reliable parameter for comparing fuels having different calorific values and densities. This energy consumption can be obtained as the product of brake specific fuel consumption and calorific value of the fuel.

Lei Zhu et al., 55 showed that biodiesel blends show reduction in unburned hydrocarbon emission compared to diesel for all load conditions. The reason for reduction in in unburned hydrocarbon emission of biodiesel blends is mainly due to the higher oxygen content which leads to better combustion.

J. Isaac et al., 56 observed that with increasing the injection pressure the hydrocarbon emission dropped further due To the increased wall temperature. At higher compression ratios show lesser emissions. Further UBHC emissions were lesser for the biodiesel blends than for neat diesel and also increasing the blend percentages in the fuel caused further reduction in emissions. The inbuilt oxygen in the biodiesel may be responsible for this reduction. The operating temperature increases at higher compression a ratio which ensures efficient combustion, and hence reduced HC emission for higher compression ratios.

R. Anand et al., 57 experimentally studied NOx emission level increases with increasing load condition. The NOx emission of biodiesel blends is lower than that of diesel. This is mainly due to the lower iodine number of biodiesel. The iodine number is a parameter that has often been used by the vegetable oil industry to determine the degree of unsaturation or the number of double bonds present in the mixture of fatty acid. The Iodine number of the waste cooking oil based biodiesel was found to be 57.3; the lower iodine number ensured the presence of the more saturated fatty acids in biodiesel.

Amann et al., 58 Oxygenate fuel blends can cause an increase in NOx emission. Normally, complete combustion causes higher combustion temperature and pressure, which results in higher NOx formation.

M. Mofijur et al., 59 higher viscosity of the blend of fuel leads to a bigger droplet size and shorter ignition delay, hence NOx emission is increased. On the other hand, NOx emission is strongly related to the higher peak combustion temperature.

D. Subramaniam et al., 60 noticed that oxides of nitrogen are mostly created from the nitrogen in the air and in fuel blends. In addition to nitrogen atoms, the fuel may contain Ammonia (NH3) and Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN), which would contribute to a minor degree in the NOx formation. The NOx concentration varies linearly with the load of the engine. As the load increases, the overall fuel–air ratio increases resulting in an increase in the average gas temperature in the combustion chamber and thus higher NOx. The oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust emission are the combination of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The formation of NOx is highly dependent on in-cylinder temperature, oxygen concentration in the cylinder.

Kegl et al., 61 peak CGP mainly depends on the combustion rate in initial stages, which is influenced by the fuel taking part in uncontrolled HR phase. High viscosity and low volatility of the biodiesel lead to poor atomization and mixture preparation with air during the ignition dealy period.

Kumar et al., 62 observed the peak Cylinder gas pressure of biodiesel and its blends were lower due to the deterioration during the preparation process of air–fuel mixture as a result of high fuel viscosity.

M. Gumus et al., 63 noticed that with the addition of biodiesel content in the blend, the peak CGP slightly goes away from top dead center (TDC) due to poor atomization, mixture preparation and combustion process. Modifications such as increasing of injection pressure, compression ratio increase peak cylinder gas pressure because these modifications improve combustion rate in the uncontrolled combustion phase of all test fuels.

2.5 Outcome of Literature Review

In general, biodiesel from various feed stock so used is to substitute crude or reduce its lions share in IC engines, by optimising parameters of biodiesel blends in diesel, Compression ratio and injection opening pressure.

It is understood from the literature review, brake thermal efficiency, brake specific fuel consumption and brake specific energy consumption plays a vital role in crude substitution. Apart from these combustion and emissions characteristic reveals the efficient burning of fuel.

2.6 Research Gaps Identified from the Literature Review

After the detailed study of the various research papers in the area of bio – fuel it has been found that little work has been done in biodiesel from two different feed stocks blended in diesel with induction of hydrogen.

1. Little literature is available on treble bio-fuel combustion in IC engine.
2. Combination of WCOBD and PSBD along with pure diesel need to be worked upon.
3. Induction of hydrogen along with WCOBD and PSBD need to experimentally studied.
4. Variation of compression ratio and injection opening pressure to get optimal proportion of biodiesel blend in diesel need to be carried out.

CHAPTER – 3

FABRICATION OF EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Setup for experimental procedure has of 1-cylinder, 4-stroke, Multi-fuel, engine. Eddy current dynamometer arrangement for loading. Without stopping engine and without varying combustion chamber geometry CR variation is achieved by arrangement of tilting cylinder block . Fuel injection point and pressure can be altered for research purpose.

3.1 Experimental Setup

Experimental Setup shown below is fabricated and interfaced with computer, used in optimizing engine performance throughout the operating range.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 3.1 Schematic diagram of the experimental setup

Air temperature sensor, coolant temperature sensor, Throttle position and trigger sensor are connected to electronic control unit which control ignition coil, fuel injector, fuel pump and idle air.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.2 Engine Specifications

Following are the engine specification with which experimentation is carried out to evaluate performance, emission and combustion. The setup is interface with computer.

Table 3.1 Engine Data

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 3.2 Test rig set up showing measuring

devices and adjustments

3.3 Measurement of Various Parameters

The measurements or data accusation is carried out for some of the following parameters are stated below. Speed measurement is done using different speed measuring devices used for speed measurement are.

1 Photo-electric/Inductive proximity pickup along speed indicator
2 Rotary-encoder

Measurement of fuel consumption is for a given time interval, volumetric liquid fuel consumed is measured and multiplying by specific gravity of fuel. Gaseous fuel is measured in litre per minute and converted to mass. Air flow is pulsating into the engine therefore air consumption measurement is done with air box fitted with orifice is used. Manometer measures different air pressure across orifice.

Determination of torque and angular speed of engine output shaft involves brake power measurement. Eddy current dynamometer has a stator i.e. many electromagnets and a rotor coupled to shaft of engine. Eddy currents oppose rotor motion, which in turn load the engine. Eddy current produce heat, which is dissipated, hence dynamometer needs cooling arrangement. Arm moment measures torque. Load is control by current regulating in electromagnets.

Series - AG eddy current dynamometer used for testing of engine. The dynamometer is bi-directional. Dynamometer load is measure by Strain gauge load cell and 3600 rotary encoder mounted on shaft measures speed.

3.4 Compression Ratio Adjustment

- Slightly lose 6 Allen bolts to clamp tilting block.
- Rotate adjuster by losing lock nut provided, such that the compression ratio is set to maximum
- Lock the adjuster by the lock nut, tight all the six Allen bolts.
- Distance between 2 pivots pins of compression ratio indicator is measured and noted. After change in compression ratio, difference in value is new compression ratio.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 3.3 Compression Ratio Adjustment

3.4 Injection Opening Pressure Adjustment

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 3.4 IOP Adjustment

The experiment was conducted at various injection opening pressures (IOPs) to find the optimum injection pressure at which a good engine performance can be obtained. Three different injection pressures i.e., 200bars, 225bars and 250bars were set by rotating the compression spring load screw until the associated pressure sensor displayed the desired value on the monitor.

CHAPTER – 4

EXPERIMENTATION

To analyse the effect on performance of Engine and its combustion and emission on a Treble bio-fuels in pure diesel i.e. waste cooking oil bio diesel added to palm stearin bio diesel and enriched with Hydrogen by varying the blend percentage by 10%, 20%, and 30% each by volume of fuel. Injection opening pressures are varied at 200, 225 and 250bar and compression ratios of 17, 17.5, 18 and 18.5 are maintained. Engine operating loads are 25%, 50%, 75% and 100 % (full load) at Constant speed of 1500 rpm.

Various tests are conducted in different phases. They are

Test Phase – 1(17 CR with three different injection pressures)

Test Phase – 2 (17.5 with three different injection pressures)

Test Phase – 3 (18 with three different injection pressures) and

Test Phase – 4 (18.5 with three different injection pressures)

All these phases are shown in the table 4.1 to table 4.4.

4.1 Test Phase – 1

Engine is made to operate at compression ratio 17 and Injection opening pressure is varied in three steps i.e. 200bar, 225bar and 250bar. This change in IOP is consider as case – 1, case – 2 and case – 3 respectively. For the Test Phase – 1, case – 1 i.e. 17CR and 200bar experiment is done for pure diesel at first then for dual biodiesel blended with pure diesel for different combinations and then finally for treble biofuel i.e. with H2 induction at different mixtures. Thereafter the Injection opening pressure is change to 225bar and 250bar and the experiment is repeated as in the table 4.1

4.2 Test Phase – 2

Subsequently engine is made to operate at compression ratio 17.5 and Injection opening pressure is varied in three steps i.e. 200bar, 225bar and 250bar. This change in IOP is consider as case – 1, case – 2 and case – 3 respectively. For the Test Phase – 2, case – 1 i.e. 17.5CR and 200bar experiment is done for pure diesel at first then for dual biodiesel blended with pure diesel for different mixtures and then finally for treble biofuel i.e. with H2 induction at different mixtures. Thereafter the Injection opening pressure is change to 225bar and 250bar and the experiment is repeated as in the table 4.2

4.3 Test Phase – 3

Again engine is made to operate at compression ratio 18 and Injection opening pressure is varied in three steps i.e. 200bar, 225bar and 250bar. This change in IOP is consider as case – 1, case – 2 and case – 3 respectively. For the Test Phase – 3, case – 1 i.e. 18CR and 200bar experiment is done for pure diesel at first then for dual biodiesel blended with pure diesel for different mixtures and then finally for treble biofuel i.e. with H2 induction at different mixtures. Thereafter the Injection opening pressure is changed to 225bar and 250bar and the experiment is repeated as in the table 4.3

4.4 Test Phase – 4

Thereafter engine is made to operate at compression ratio 18.5 and Injection opening pressure is varied in three steps i.e. 200bar, 225bar and 250bar. This change in IOP is consider as case – 1, case – 2 and case – 3 respectively. For the Test Phase – 4, case – 1 i.e. 18.5CR and 200bar experiment is done for pure diesel at first then for dual biodiesel blended with pure diesel for different mixtures and then finally for treble biofuel i.e. with H2 induction at different mixtures. Thereafter the Injection opening pressure is changed to 225bar and 250bar and the experiment is repeated as in the table 4.4

Table 4.1 Test Phase – 1

Case – I for 200bar IOP

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

CHAPTER – 5

EXPERIMENTAL WORK AND DATA ACCUSATION

Test is done out at constant speed of 1500 rpm for various percentage of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% loading. Cylinder bore 87.5 mm, stroke length 110 mm. Radius of brake drum is 185 mm. Density of hydrogen is 0.082 kg/m3 and flow rate of 6lpm. Density of dual biodiesel blend i.e. (10WCOBD +10PSBD + 80D) is 842.12 .

Table 5.1 Fuel Properties for Pure diesel, Biodiesels and Diesel Blends B10.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

* Properties are from test report of Vimta Labs Ltd., see Annexure- III

Time taken for 20 ml of fuel is recorded. Calorific value of test fuel i.e. (10WCOBD +10PSBD + 80D) is 45505kJ/kg. Compression ratio of 18 and Injection opening pressure is 225bar.

5.1 Data Accusation and Calculation

Data accusation at engine test rig is load kg, speed in rpm, time taken for 20ml of fuel in sec, induction of hydrogen in lpm, properties of fuel like density and calorific value. Table 5.1 to 5.4 shows respective data.

Table 5.3 Data Accusation and Calculation for B20

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 5.4 Data accusation and calculation for B20 = 6lpm H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

5.2 Brake Power Calculation

5.3 Brake Mean Effective Pressure Calculation

Where L = length of stroke = 0.11 m

A = cross sectional area of bore = D2

= (0.0875)2 mm2 = 0.0060132 mm2

N = rpm = 1519

n = 2 for 4 stroke

X = No. of cylinder = 1

5.4 Mass of Fuel Calculation

Mass of liquid fuel (Mf) = (ρ V) T

= (842.12* 20ml) T

* Value of density for B20 (10WCOBD +10PSBD + 80D) is shown in table – 5.2

mf = 1.0039 kg/hr

Mass of hydrogen fuel (mh2) = V ρ

= 6lpm * 0.082 kg/m3

= 6 0.00000136 kg/sec

= 6 0.00000136 * 60 * 60 kg/hr

= 6 0.00492kg/hr

= 6 0.00492kg/hr

mh2 = 0.02952 kg/hr

5.5 Brake Thermal Efficiency Calculation for B20

* Value of CV for B20 (10WCOBD +10PSBD + 80D) is shown in table 5.2

BTE = 27.03%

5.6 Brake Specific Fuel Consumption Calculation

BSFC = 0.3

5.7 Brake thermal efficiency calculation for B20 + 6lpm H2

= (Mgaseous fuel CV of gaseous fuel + Mliquid fuel CV of liquid fuel)

BTE = 34.98%

5.8 Energy Equivalent of Fuel Constituents

Energy Equivalent of gaseous fuel = Mh2 LCVh2

EEgas fuel = 0.02952 kg/hr 119900kJ/kg

EEgas fuel = 0.98318 kW

Energy Equivalent of liquid fuel = M(10WCOBD +10PSBD + 80D) LCV(10WCOBD +10PSBD + 80D)

EEliquid fuel

EEliquid fuel = 12.6895kW

Total Energy Equivalent = 0.98318 kW + 12.6895kW

EEtotal = 13.6727kW

5.9 Energy Share by Fuel Constituents

ESgaseous fuel = 7.19%

ESliquid fuel = 92.80%

5.10 Brake Specific Energy Consumption Calculation

BSEC = BSFC CV

= (Mgaseous fuel CV of gaseous fuel + Mliquid fuel CV of liquid fuel)/BP

BSEC = 7785.6 kJ/ kW-hr

CHAPTER – 6

CFD ANALYSIS

Improvement in Design and manufacture is under way for internal combustion engine. Next generation engines need is compact, lightweight, powerful, and flexible, but still be exhibit less pollution and consume less fuel. Innovative engine designs will be needed to meet these competing requirements. Ability to exactly and rapidly analyse the performance of multiple engine design is critical.

6.1 Role of CFD analysis in CI engine simulation

IC engine involve complex fluid dynamic interaction between air flow, fuel injection, moving geometry, and combustion. Phenomena as of fluid dynamics like

- Production of turbulence,
- Formation of jet,
- impingement at wall with swirl and
- tumble

Are critical for high efficiency engine and meeting emissionss

Combustion chamber shape design problems include

- design of port-flow,
- variable valve timing,
- injection timing,
- ignition timing, and
- design for low or idle speed

Useful information can be provided by CFD. Basic equation that describe flow of fluid are solved on a mesh that describe the 3D geometry, sub-models for turbulence, fuel injection, and combustion.

CFD analysis is used largely in automotive engineering. CFD analysis is easier for analysts to perform, due to increase of computing power and 3D CAD systems.

CFD analyses are classified as

- PFA or Port Flow Analysis include
- swirl and tumble
- quantification of flow rate,
- CFA or Cold Flow Analysis include
- no injection of fuel/reactions
- moving geometry,
- airflow and
- ICCS or In-Cylinder Combustion Simulation include
- pollutant on moving geometry,
- prediction power,
- exhaust strokes,
- ignition and
- reactions,
- FCS or Full Cycle Simulation i.e. simulation of the entire engine cycle with
- air flow,
- fuel injection,
- reactions and
- combustion

For engines, CFD analysis process is time consuming, error-prone and complex. Analyst has to go through several steps to define problem, and even minor error lead to failure of the simulation. Once the analysis has been set up, it takes many hours or days of computation to get the solution and evaluate the results. Results are fairly complex, having large data sets, require time and effort to analyse and get information that can be corrected at design stage.

6.2 Combustion Simulation Inputs

Combustion simulation is carried out on sector of IC engine to reduce computational time and increase solution accuracy. The inputs for the IC engine simulation are shown in the below figure 2.As per the experimental set up the inlet valve closes at 350 after BDC (Crank angle = 215) and exhaust valve opens at 350 before BDC (Crank angle = 505).The connecting rod length and crank radius are defined as 234 mm and 64 mm. This would enable us to achieve the compression ratio of 18.

Table 6.1 Inputs defined for combustion simulation

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

6.3 Geometry of IC Engine

Combustion simulation is done over a sector of the combustion fluid volume from 215 to 505 degree crank angle to check the combustion pressure at different crank angles. The geometry used for the simulation is shown below.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthaltenAbbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig 6.1 Geometry of IC engine sector for combustion simulation

6.4 FE Model

The geometry has been meshed using ICE fluent software. The geometry is meshed with the parameters shown in the below figure 6.2

The mesh obtained from the above parameters consists of the following number of nodes and elements as shown in table 6.2. The meshed models are shown in the figure 6.3

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 6.2 Mesh Parameters

Table 6.2 Mesh statistics

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 6.3 Mesh model of IC engine sector for combustion simulation

6.5 Boundary Conditions

Boundary conditions applied for the combustion simulation are as follows:

- The fuel injection pressure of 225 Bar is applied in combustion chamber at 70 degrees spray angle at a radius of 0.02 mm and at a crank angle of 230 before TDC ( Crank angle = 337) and extended up to 50 ( Crank angle = 342).

CHAPTER –7

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Pure diesel is blended with biodiesel from two different feed-stocks i.e. WCO and PS in varying ratios to get performance, emissions and combustion characteristics. The optimum blending ratio so determined is additional assisted in combustion by introduction of third biofuel in the form of hydrogen induction.

Combustion of engine with treble fuel blended in diesel is basically controlled by hydrogen–diesel air mixing process which is influenced by the spray characteristics, air motion and the percentage substitution of hydrogen. The effect of characteristics on the in-cylinder pressure, performance and emission trends are presented in this chapter. Evaluation of ignition delay is a very important parameter which effects on the in-cylinder pressure hence a detailed discussion of ignition delay is presented with the variation of H2 substitution 64.

In this chapter experimental findings on CI engine will be discuss phase wise. Every phase will have three cases with respect to their injection opening pressure. At every phase optimal injection pressure will be evaluated, and at this combustion analysis will be done. Then all the phase results will be compared and the optimal readings will be validated by simulation using ansys CFD software.

7.1. Test Phase - 1

Performance, combustion and emissions of a diesel engine with variable fuel mixture of WCOBD, PSBD and hydrogen at Injection opening pressures of 200bar, 225bar, 250bar and compression ratio 17 are presented here.

This test carried out by varying the Injection opening pressure as 200bar, 225bar and 250bar and compression ratio of 17. Test are conducted with diesel as stand-alone fuel, blended with dual bio fuel i.e. WCOBD and PSBD of varying ratios and then enrichment of hydrogen with the blended fuel proportions, by varying load from 25% to full load at an increment of 25% at constant speed of 1500 rpm. Performance characteristics are evaluated. The influence of IOP on emissions is measured and the combustion characteristics such as in cylinder pressure, NHRR and fuel line pressure are measured.

7.1.1. Case – I for 200bar

Performance, combustion and emission of engine with variable fuel mixtures. i.e. WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D (B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) percentage of substitution for IOP of 200bar and compression ratio of 17bar.

7.1.1.1. Brake thermal efficiency

Brake thermal efficiency is the measure of performance of the engine calculated as the ratio of brake power generated to the heat input. Variation of brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different mixtures is compared with pure diesel mode as represented in the below Fig.7.1.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.1. Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using 3 different mixtures is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.1. It is observed that as the biodiesel is blended with diesel for all proportions, BTE decreases. Maximum BTE for WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D(B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) percentage of substitution, is found to be 12.6%, 10.5`% and 19.5% lesser than that of pure diesel mode respectively.

It is notice that for all fuels used, BTE increases with increasing load steeply except at full load 65. Slow vaporization and high viscosity of biodiesel present in these blends results in inferior combustion which reduces BTE.

As the blending percentage of biodiesel increase from WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D (B10) to WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) the thermal efficiency increases, cause of this may be due to high O2 content of biodiesel resulting in excellent combustion of fuel.

Biodiesel fuel delivered to engine is on volumetric basis/stroke, therefore large quantity of biodiesel is fed into the cylinder.

7.1.1.2. Brake specific fuel consumption

It is ratio between mass flow rate of fuel and effective power. BSFC is significant parameter that can be defined for fuel flow rate per unit power output. It measures how efficiently an engine is using the fuel supply to produce work. Variation of brake specific fuel consumption with BMEP using different fuel mixture as prescribed in test Phase - i.e. pure diesel, B10, B20 and B30 at IOP of 200 bar and 17CR are show in the figure 7.2.

Fig.7.2 It is seen that the BSFC for biodiesel blended fuel is higher compares to diesel. Biodiesel fuel is delivered into engine on volumetric basis/stroke; therefore, larger quantity of biodiesel is fed in the engine. Because biodiesel has lesser calorific value, extra biodiesel fuel is needed, to produce same power 65.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.2 Variation of BSFC with BMP using 3 different mixtures is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

Minimum BSFC is observed for pure diesel is 0.31 kg/kW-hr and for blended diesel for WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) is 0.36703 kg/kW-hr

7.1.1.3. Volumetric Efficiency

Volumetric Efficiency is ratio of actual air capacity to ideal air capacity. Fig.7.3 Volumetric Efficiency is more for pure diesel mode compared to any percentage substitution of biodiesel. This is because of heating up of inlet manifold due to higher exhaust gas temperatures and due to radiation heat transfer in VCR engine.

Diesel engine is observed to have higher Volumetric Efficiency of 75.01% while it is 68.012%, 69.2% and 67.5% for WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D (B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) respectively.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.3 Variation of Volumetric Efficiency with B ME P using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

7.1.1.4. Carbon monoxide Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.4 Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.4 Optimum CO content is observed for B20 at 75% load i.e. 0.12% by volume.

7.1.1.5. Hydrocarbons Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.5 Variation of HC with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.5 Hydrocarbons is organic compounds formed due to incomplete combustion. HC content will be low for B20 at 75% load i.e. 54ppm, since maximum brake thermal efficiency is for B20 i.e. for 20% bio diesel substitution.

Fig.7.6 Nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide are grouped together as a NOx emission. Formation of NOx is mainly dependent on in-cylinder temperature, oxygen concentration in the cylinder.

Oxides of nitrogen are mainly formed from the nitrogen in the air and in fuel blends. In addition, the fuel may contain ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, which could contribute to a minor degree of the NOx formation 66.

7.1.1.6. NOx emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.6 Variation of NOx with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

With increasing load, the overall fuel-air ratio increase this increases the NOx. High biodiesel blends substantially raised the NOx emissions. Maximum NOx content was observed for B30 at full load condition i.e. 1193ppm, which is 19.18 % above that of pure diesel mode.

Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – I of Test Phase – 1

- WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency (Fig.7.1) and Volumetric Efficiency (Fig.7.3) and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption (Fig.7.2), therefore it is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.
- This optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in diesel i.e. WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20), is additional experimented to improve BTE by induction of hydrogen as third biofuel.
- Treble biofuel in diesel is experimented with the hydrogen induction at the rate of 4 lpm, 6 lpm and 8lpm.

7.1.1.7. Brake thermal efficiency of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.7 Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.7 As the biodiesel is blended with diesel for B20 share, Brake thermal efficiency decreases, but as third biofuel in the form of hydrogen in inducted at three different ratio of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm then BTE increases for all treble blends than compared to pure diesel. It is also noticed that for all the fuels used BTE increases with increasing load steeply except at full load. Maximum BTEf or B20 + 4lpm, B20 + 6lpm and B20 + 8lpm is found to be 9%, 18% and 14.7% above that of pure diesel mode respectively. And for B20 BTE is 11% less than that of pure diesel mode.

Blend WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) +6lpm of hydrogen substitution is having higher Brake thermal efficiency when compared to the other blends.

7.1.1.8. Brake specific energy consumption of Treble Biofuel in diesel

BDFC is an important and ideal parameter for comparing engine performance of the fuels having different calorific value and density. Brake specific energy consumption in a treble fuel mode is calculated from brake specific fuel consumption and the calorific value of dual fuel.

Fig.7.8 As the percentage of hydrogen substitutions increases, brake specific energy consumption reduces due to the uniformity of mixture formation in hydrogen which in turn assists the diesel combustion thereby improving the combustion of diesel.

The lowest BSEC 9649.5 kJ/kWh is obtained at 6lpm hydrogen enrichment at 75% load compared to pure diesel which is 13054.65kJ/kWh.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.8 Variation of Brake specific energy consumption with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.9 It is depicted that the formation of CO was minimum for treble fuel mode at any percentage substitution of hydrogen in Assessment with pure diesel. Since hydrogen is free from carbon content, hence formation of CO emissions decreases up to 75% load for pure diesel mode and even for all hydrogen substitutions. But as the load increased to full load, there was a sharp increase in CO formation because the fine size droplets did not have sufficient time for complete combustion 67. Hence at 75% load the optimal CO content was 0.1 %vol.

7.1.1.9. CO emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.9 Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

7.1.1.10. HC emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.10 Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.10 shows minimum HC is for B20 + 6lpm at 75% load, which is 51.37 ppm

7.1.1.11. NOx emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.11 Variation of NOx emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.11 As load increases, overall fuel-air ratio increases, increasing average gas temperature in the combustion chamber which increases the NOx. High biodiesel blends substantially increased the NOx emissions 68. Maximum NOx content was observed for 8lpm of hydrogen substitution at full load condition i.e. 1399.2 ppm, which is 39.78 % above that of pure diesel mode.

7.1.2. Case – II for 225bar

Performance, combustion and emission of diesel engine with variable fuel mixture i.e. WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D (B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) percentage of substitution for IOP of 225bar and compression ratio of 17bar.

7.1.2.1. Brake thermal efficiency

As the IOP was increase from 200 to 225 bar the size of fuel droplets become small and fine and hence proper atomization of pilot fuel and more spray penetration. Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel mode as represented in the below Fig.7.12

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.12 Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.12 As the biodiesel is blended with diesel for all proportions, BTE decreases. Maximum brake thermal efficiency for WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D (B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) percentage of substitution is found to be 10.3%, 8.3% and 12.2% lesser than that of pure diesel mode respectively. It is also noticed that for all the fuels used BTE increases with increasing load steeply except at full load.

7.1.2.2 Brake specific fuel consumption

Variation of BSFC with BMEP using different fuel mixture as prescribed in test Phase - 1, case II i.e. pure diesel, B10, B20 and B30 at IOP of 225bar and 17CR. are show in the figure 7.1.2.2.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.13 Variation of BSFC with BMP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR.

Minimum BSFC is observed for pure diesel at 75% load is 0.291 kg/kW-hr and for blended diesel at 75% load for WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) is 0.34 kg/kW-hr.

Volumetric Efficiency is presented in Fig.7.14 Volumetric Efficiency is more for pure diesel mode compared to any percentage substitution of biodiesel. At 225 bar IOP, it is found out that the Volumetric Efficiency of pure diesel, B10, B20, and B30 is 78.7%, 73%, 74% and 72% respectively at full load conditions.

7.1.2.3. Volumetric Efficiency

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.14 Variation of Volumetric Efficiency with B ME P using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.15 It is depicted that the formation of CO was minimum for dual fuel mode at any percentage substitution of biodiesel in Assessment with pure diesel. As the CO content gradually decreased up to 75% load for pure diesel mode and even for all biodiesel substitutions.

But as the load increased to full load, there was a sharp increase in CO formation because at 225bar the fine size droplets did not have sufficient time for complete combustion.

7.1.2.4. Carbon monoxide Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.15 Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR.

Hence at 75% load the optimal CO content is observed for B20 i.e. 0.08% by volume.

Fig.7.16 HC content will be low for B20 at 75% load i.e. 51.34 ppm, formation of HC contents will be low because of proper mixing of fuel droplets with air, since maximum brake thermal efficiency is for B20 i.e. for 20% bio diesel substitution.

An optimum blending ratio its HC content at full load was found to be 57.65 ppm.

7.1.2.5. Hydrocarbons Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.16 Variation of HC with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR.

7.1.2.6. NOx emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.17 Variation of NOx with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.6 At 225bar maximum amount of NOx were found B30 i.e. 1250 ppm, which is 19.04% above that of pure diesel mode. and for optimum blend it is 1150 ppm.

Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – II of Test Phase – 1

- WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency (Fig.7.12) and Volumetric Efficiency (Fig.7.14) when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption (Fig.7.14), therefore it is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.
- This optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in diesel i.e. WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20), is additional experimented to improve BTE by induction of hydrogen as third biofuel.
- Treble biofuel in diesel is experimented with the hydrogen induction at the rate of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm.

7.1.2.7. Brake thermal efficiency of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Fig.7.18 As the biodiesel is blended with diesel for B20 share, brake thermal efficiency decreases, but as third biofuel in the form of hydrogen in inducted at three different ratio of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm then BTE increases for all treble blends than compared to pure diesel.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.18 Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR.

For 75% load condition BTE for B20 + 4lpm, B20 + 6lpm and B20 + 8lpm is found to be 4.6% and 14.105% and 10.06%, above that of pure diesel mode respectively. And for B20 BTE is 9.64% less than that of pure diesel mode.

Fig.7.19 the lowest brake specific energy consumption of 8550.8 kJ/kW-h is obtained at 6lpm hydrogen enrichment at 75% load compared to pure diesel of 11997.2 kJ/kWh.

7.1.2.8. Brake specific energy consumption of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.19 Variation of Brake specific energy consumption with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.20 It is depicted that the formation of CO was minimum for treble fuel mode at any percentage substitution of hydrogen in Assessment with pure diesel. Since hydrogen is free from carbon content, hence formation of CO emissions decreases up to 75% load for pure diesel mode and even for all hydrogen substitutions. But as the load increased to full load, there was a sharp increase in CO formation because the fine size droplets did not have sufficient time for complete combustion. Hence at 75% load the optimal CO content was 0.059 %vol.

7.1.2.9. CO emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.20 Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR.

7.1.2.10. HC emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.21 Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.21 Since maximum brake thermal efficiency is for 6lpm of hydrogen substitution; hence formation of HC contents will be low because of proper mixing of fuel droplets with air. 6lpm of hydrogen substitution was elected as an optimum value and its HC content at 75% load was found to be 46.43 ppm.

Fig.7.22 NOx concentration varies linearly with load of engine. As load increases, overall fuel-air ratio increases, resulting in a increase in average gas temperature in combustion chamber and this increases NOx. High biodiesel blends substantially increased the NOx emissions. Maximum NOx content was observed for 8lpm of hydrogen substitution at full load condition i.e. 1485.82 ppm, which is 41.48 % above that of pure diesel mode.

7.1.2.11. NOx emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.22 Variation of NOx emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR.

7.1.3. Case – III for 250bar

Performance, combustion and emissions effect on of a diesel engine with variable fuel mixture at IOP of 250bar and CR of 17

7.1.3.1. Brake thermal efficiency

Brake thermal efficiency is the measure of performance of the engine calculated as the ratio of brake power generated to the heat input. Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel mode as represented in the below Fig.7.23

Fig.7.23 For all the fuels used BTE increases with increasing load steeply except at full load. Maximum brake thermal efficiency for WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D (B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) percentage of substitution, are found to be 14.3%, 13.09% and 17.4% lesser than that of pure diesel mode respectively.

As the IOP was increased from 225 to 250bar, though the fuel droplets size be smaller but there will not be much more time for homogeneous mixing leads to decrease in ignition delay decelerates the Brake thermal efficiency in Assessment with 225bar.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.23 Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17CR.

7.1.3.2 Brake specific fuel consumption

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.24 Variation of BSFC with BMP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.24 As the IOP was increased from 225 to 250 bar, though the fuel droplets size be smaller but there will not be much more time for homogeneous mixing leads to decrease in ignition delay decelerates the Brake thermal efficiency in Assessment with 225bar. Brake specific consumption increased at 250bar and engine performance starts deteriorating. BSFC is observed for B20 at 75% load is 0.355 kg/kWh and it is 20.33% above that of pure diesel mode.

Fig.7.25 Volumetric Efficiency is more for pure diesel mode compared to any percentage substitution of biodiesel. This is because of heating up of inlet manifold due to higher exhaust gas temperatures and due to radiation heat transfer in VCR engine. Diesel engine is observed to have higher Volumetric Efficiency of 78% while it is 71%, 72.2% and 70.5% for WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D (B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) respectively.

7.1.3.3. Volumetric efficiency

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.25 Variation of Volumetric Efficiency with B ME P using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.26 It was depicted that the formation of CO was minimum for dual fuel mode at any percentage substitution of biodiesel in Assessment with pure diesel. As the CO content gradually decreased up to 75% load for pure diesel mode and even for all biodiesel substitutions. But as the load increased to full load, there was a sharp increase in CO formation because at 250bar the fine size droplets did not have sufficient time for complete combustion. Hence at 75% load the optimal CO content is observed for B20 i.e. 0.1% by volume.

7.1.3.4. Carbon monoxide Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.26 Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.27 HC content will be low for B20 at 75% load i.e. 52.31 ppm, formation of HC contents will be low because of proper mixing of fuel droplets with air, since maximum brake thermal efficiency is for B20 i.e. for 20% bio diesel substitution. An optimum blending ratio its HC content at full load is found to be 58.21 ppm.

Fig.7.28 NOx concentration varies linearly with load of engine. As load increases, overall fuel-air ratio increases, resulting in a increase in average gas temperature in combustion chamber and this increases NOx. High biodiesel blends substantially increased the NOx emissions.

7.1.3.5. Hydrocarbons Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.27 Variation of HC with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17CR.

7.1.3.6. NOx emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.28 Variation of NOx with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.28 Maximum NOx content was observed for B30 at full load condition i.e. 1209 ppm, which is 197.95 % above that of pure diesel mode.

Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – III of Test Phase – 1

- WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency (Fig.7.12) and Volumetric Efficiency(Fig.7.14) when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption(Fig.7.14), therefore it is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.
- This optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in diesel i.e. WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20), is additional experimented to improve BTE by induction of hydrogen as third biofuel.
- Treble biofuel in diesel is experimented with the hydrogen induction at the rate of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm.

7.1.3.7. Brake thermal efficiency of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Fig.7.29 As the biodiesel is blended with diesel for B20 share, Brake thermal efficiency decreases, but as third biofuel in the form of hydrogen in inducted at three different ratio of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm then BTE increases for all treble blends than compared to pure diesel. Maximum BTE for B20 + 4lpm H2, B20 + 6lpm H2 and B20 + 8lpm is found to be 8.01%, 21.06% and 16.75 % above that of pure diesel mode respectively. And for B20 BTE is 13.1% less than that of pure diesel mode. Blend WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) +6lpm of hydrogen substitution is having higher Brake thermal efficiency when compared to the other blends.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.29 Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.31 It is depicted that the formation of CO was minimum for treble fuel mode at any percentage substitution of hydrogen in assessment with pure diesel. Since hydrogen is free from carbon content, hence formation of CO emissions decreases up to 75% load for pure diesel mode and even for all hydrogen substitutions. But as the load increased to full load, there was a sharp increase in CO formation because the fine size droplets did not have sufficient time for complete combustion. Hence at 75% load the optimal CO content is for B20 + 6lpm hydrogen substitution 0.07 %vol.

7.1.3.8. Brake specific energy consumption of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.30 Variation of Brake specific energy consumption with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.32 Biodiesel shows reduction in unburnt HC emission compared with diesel for all loading condition. The reduction in unburnt HC emission of biodiesel blends is solely due to higher oxygen content which leads to better combustion.

7.1.3.9. CO emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.31 Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17CR.

7.1.3.10. HC emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.32 Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17CR.

Fig.7.32 Biodiesel blends shows lesser HC emission at lesser engine loads and higher HC emission a higher engine loads, this is because of relatively less oxygen available for reaction when more fuel is injected into the cylinder at high engine load, the lesser calorific value and the higher viscosity of biodiesel oil results in higher HC emissions.

Since maximum brake thermal efficiency is for 6lpm of hydrogen substitution, hence formation of HC contents will be low because of proper mixing of fuel droplets with air. 6lpm of hydrogen substitution was elected as an optimum value and its HC content at 75% load is found to be 48.41 ppm.

7.1.3.11. NOx emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.33 Variation of NOx emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR

Fig.7.33 The NOx concentration varies linearly with the load of the engine. As load increases, overall fuel-air ratio increases, resulting in a increase in average gas temperature in combustion chamber and this increases NOx. High biodiesel blends substantially increased the NOx emissions. Maximum NOx content was observed for 8lpm of hydrogen substitution at full load condition i.e. 1429 ppm, which is 39.41 % above that of pure diesel mode.

7.1.4. Attributes of Test Phase – 1for 17CR

From the inference of test-1 to test-7 in each Case – I, Case – II and Case - III of Test Phase – 1

- As it is noticed in all 3 cases of Test Phase – 1that WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency and Volumetric Efficiency when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption, therefore B20 is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.

7.1.4.1. Optimum Loading of Test Phase – 1

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.34. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 17CR

- Fig.7.34. Shows WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) is alone plotted for different IOP against BTE for different loads.
- It is also noticed that from Fig.7.1, Fig.7.12 and Fig.7.23 that for all the fuels used BTE increases with increasing load steeply except at full load. Therefore the optimise loading is 75%.
- From the Fig.7.34. Above it reveals that BTE for all loads is maximum at IOP of 225bar and the percentage decrease being 11.6%, 9.12%, 12.02% and 11.91% at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% respectively for IOP 250bar.
- Maximum BTE at full load i.e. 23.5% and at 75% loading it is found to be 23.7%, because at this peak loading a mild knock is noticed. Therefore 75% loading is optimum value.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.35 BSFC vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 17CR

- Fig.7.35 Shows WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) is alone plotted for different IOP against BSFC for different loads.
- It is also noticed from Fig.7.2, Fig.7.13 and Fig.7.24 that for all the fuels used BSFC decreases with increasing load steeply except at full load. Therefore the optimise loading is 75%.
- For optimum IOP of 225bar minimum BSFC at full load i.e. 0.355 kg/kW-hr but at this peak loading a mild knock was observed. And at 75% loading BSFC is found to be 0.35 kg/kW-hr and it is selected as optimum load value.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.36 BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 17CR

- Fig.7.36 Shows WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) +6lpm H2 is alone plotted for different IOP against BTE for different loads.
- It is also noticed that from Fig.7.1, Fig.7.12 and Fig.7.23 that for all the fuels used BTE increases with increasing load steeply except at full load. Therefore the optimise loading is 75%.
- Maximum BTE at 100% load i.e. 29.34% and at 75% loading it is found to be 29.93% and it is selected as optimum load value. Since at this peak loading a mild knock was observed.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.37 BSEC vs. IOP for B20 + 6lpm H2 blend at different load at 17CR

- Fig.7.37 Shows WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) is alone plotted for different IOP against BSFC for different loads.
- It is also noticed from Fig.7.2, Fig.7.13 and Fig.7.24 that for all the fuels used BSFC decreases with increasing load steeply except at full load. Therefore the optimise loading is 75%.

7.1.4.2. Optimum Injection opening pressure of Test Phase – 1

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.38 BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its biodiesel blends at 75% load and at 17CR.

- BTE at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%, from Fig.7.38 It is observed that with the increase of Injection opening pressure BTE increases and later with further increase in Injection opening pressure BTE decrease. IOP of 225bar has more BTE for all blends and pilot fuel.
- With increasing injection pressure in CI engine, ignition delay is reduced and the fuel may be completely burnt to produce large amount of heat energy.
- With further increase in IOP to 250bar, the percentage fall in BTE is being 6.82%, 9.62%, 12.02% and 10.88% for pure diesel, WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D(B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) respectively.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.39 BSFC vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 17CR

- BSFC at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%, from Fig.7.39 It is observed that with increase of IOP, brake specific fuel consumption decreases and later with further increase in Injection opening pressure BSFC increase. IOP of 225bar also has more BTE for all blends and pilot fuel.
- Increase of IOP to 250bar decreases the ignition delay period, which in turn decreases homogenous mixing possibility leading to incomplete combustion, therefore less Brake thermal efficiency.
- Volumetric Efficiency at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%, from Fig.7.40 it is observed that with the increase of Injection opening pressure Vol. Eff. increases and later with further increase in Injection opening pressure Vol. Eff. decrease. IOP of 225bar has more BTE for all blends and pilot fuel.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.40 Vol. Eff. vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 17CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.41 CO vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at 75% load for 17CR

- For the optimal IOP i.e. 225bar the CO emission is minimum for B20 i.e. 0.08% Vol., for diesel 0.1107% Vol.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.42 HC vs IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at 75% load for 17CR

- HC emission is minimum for B20 i.e. 51.354 ppm and 53.768 ppm is for diesel.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.43 NOx vs IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at 75% load for 17CR

- Maximum NOx is for B30 at 225bar i.e. 970 ppm, for diesel it is 802.14 ppm and for the optimal blend it is 910 ppm
- Therefore the optimum IOP selected is 225bar
- At this optimum parameters so obtain i.e. blend B20 and IOP of 225bar, hydrogen induction is done to improve BTE.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.44 BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at 75% load and 17CR

- Fig.7.44 Reveals that BTE increases with the increases in hydrogen induction in the biodiesel blend B20.
- It also shows that with the increase of IOP BTE at first increases then with further increase to 250bar the BTE falls from peak value.
- The optimum Injection opening pressure being 225bar where the Maximum BTE is noticed i.e. for B20 + 6lpm hydrogen 29.93% and for pure diesel and dual biodiesel is 26.23% 23.70% respectively

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.45 BSEC vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at 75% load for 17CR.

- BSEC at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%
- The optimum Injection opening pressure being 225bar where the minimum BSEC is noticed i.e. for B20 + 6lpm hydrogen 8550.89 kJ/kw-hr and for pure diesel and dual biodiesel is 11997.22 kJ/kw-hr and 14990.49 kJ/kw-hr respectively.

Fig.7.46 Minimum CO emission is for B20 + 6 lpm at 75% load and 225bar is 0.05915% vol.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.46 CO vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at 75% load at 17CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.47 HC vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at 75% load at 17CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.48 NOx vs IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at 75% load at 17CR

7.1.5 Combustion Characteristic of Test Phase – 1

Combustion is rapid oxidation of fuel accompanied by production of heat, or heat and light. Complete combustion is possible only in the presence of an adequate supply of oxygen. Oxygen is one of the most common elements on earth making up 20.9% of our air. Rapid fuel oxidation results in large amounts of heat. Liquid fuel must be changed to a gas fuel before they burn. Usually heat is required to change liquids into gases.

7.1.5.1 Cylinder-Pressure

Peak cylinder pressure is high for diesel fuel for all tests. This result can be related to the differences in the heat release pattern. Peak in- cylinder pressure largely depends on the combustion rate in initial stage, which is influenced by fuel taking part in uncontrolled heat release phase. High viscosity and low volatility of the biodiesel results in poor atomization and mixture preparation with air during the ignition delay period. The peak in- cylinder pressure of biodiesel blends are lesser due to the deterioration during the preparation process of air–fuel mixture as a result of high fuel viscosity.

As noticed in the figure below peak in- cylinder pressure slightly decreases with the addition of biodiesel in the blend. With the addition of biodiesel content in the blend, the peak cylinder gas pressure slightly goes away from top dead centre (TDC) due to poor atomization, mixture preparation and combustion process 71.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.49 Variation of in-cylinder pressure vs. Crank Angle at optimal loading conditions of 75% and 225bar IOP respectively for 17CR.

From figure 7.49 cylinder pressure found maximum for B20 6lpm H2 then followed by B20 8lpm H2, B20 4lpm H2, pure diesel and B20 respectively. The peak in-cylinder pressure when engine is operating under pure diesel, B20, B20-4lpm H2, B20-6lpm H2, and B20-8 lpm H2 is found to be 55.99710, 54.97980, 59.17882, 61.3844, and 60.56034bar respectively.

The main reason for higher peak in cylinder pressure in CI engine running with hydrogen was due its unique physical properties. Cylinder pressure is observed minimum for B20 blend substitution because it was unable to provide sufficient energy density inside the cylinder.

7.1.5.2 Net heat release rate

Net heat release rate make it possible to determine ignition delay, start of combustion and peak set heat release rate. Figure 7.1.5.2 shows the Net heat release rate for different fuels, at beginning a negative HR is observed and after combustion, this behaviour becomes positive because of vaporization of fuel accumulated during ignition delay. After ignition delay, premixed fuel air mixture burns rapidly, followed by diffusion combustion, where burn rate is controlled by fuel–air mixture.

Location of the maximumnet heat release rate as crank angle for biodiesel blends with diesel fuel is earlier than that of diesel fuel 71.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.50 Variation of net heat release rate for optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively at 17CR.

Net heat release rate for B20 + 8lpm H2, B20 + 6lpm H2, B20 + 4lpm H2, biodiesel blend of diesel and pure diesel is observed as 61.13 J/deg, 63.05 J/deg, 56.80 J/deg, 51.80225 J/deg and 53.52 J/deg respectively. It can also be observed that the ignition of B20 + 8lpm H2, B20 + 6lpm H2, B20 + 4lpm H2, biodiesel blend of diesel and pure diesel are found at 359°, 358°, 360°, 3620 and 361° crank angles respectively.

From figure 7.3.5.3 shows that maximum fuel line pressure is obtain at crank angle of 345 degree, 261 bar, 248 bar, 282 bar, 304 bar and 290 bar for pure diesel, B20, B20 + 4lpm H2, B20 + 6lpm H2, B20 + 8lpm H2 respectively.

7.1.5.3 Fuel line pressure

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.51 Variation of fuel line pressure for optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively at 17CR.

7.2. Test Phase – 2

Performance, combustion and emissions of a diesel engine with varying dual biodiesel blends in pure diesel and combustion additional assisted by variable hydrogen induction at Injection opening pressures of 200bar, 225bar, 250bar and modified compression ratio 17.5.

The performance, combustion and emission data is analysed by a data acquisition system and the behaviour of performance parameters and emission parameters were studied with respect to BMEP and plotted as below. This test was carried out by varying the Injection opening pressure as 200 bar, 225bar and 250bar and modified compression ratio of 17.5. Dual biodiesel are blended in pure diesel in the share of WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D (B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) percentage substitution by varying load from 25% to 100 % at an increment of 25% at constant speed of 1500 rpm.

The performance characteristics are calculated. The influences of IOP on emissions are measured and the combustion characteristics such as in cylinder pressure, NHRR and fuel line pressure are also measured. To assist combustion and improve BTE hydrogen is inducted in air at different rates of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm.

7.2.1. Case – I for 200bar

Effect on performance, combustion and emissions of a diesel engine with variable fuel mixture at IOP of 200bar and CR of 17.5

Fig.7.1 It is depicted that Brake thermal efficiency increases with increasing load on engine steeply unto 75% load, there after decrease till 100% loading for all test fuels. As the blending ratio are varied Brake thermal efficiency decreases at first for B10 then increases for B20 and then fall for B30.

Brake thermal efficiency increases for 200bar and 17.5CR than engine operating at 200bar and 17CR. Maximum BTE for blends B10, B20, B30 and pure diesel Brake thermal efficiency is observed to be 22.88%, 23.55%, 21.11 and 26.19% respectively for 75% load.

7.2.1.1. Brake thermal efficiency

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.52 Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17.5CR.

Pure diesel has higher Brake thermal efficiency than any other blend; WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) is the optimal blending ratio.

Fig.7.53 Depicts that it is depicted that Brake specific fuel consumption decreases with increasing load on engine steeply unto 75% load, there after decrease till 100% loading for all test fuels.

As the blending ratio are varied brake specific fuel consumption increases at first for B10 then decreases for B20 and then increase for B30 69. Brake specific fuel consumption decreases for 200bar and 17.5CR than engine operating at 200bar and 17CR. For 75% load condition for blends B10, B20, B30 and pure diesel brake specific fuel consumption is observed to be 0.373kg/kW-hr, 0.365kg/kW-hr, 0.384kg/kW-hr and 0.2905kg/kW-hr respectively. Pure diesel has lesser brake specific fuel consumption than any other blend; WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) is the optimal blending ratio.

7.2.1.2. Brake specific fuel consumption

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.53 Variation of BSFC with BMP using three different combinations of biodiesel blend is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17.5CR.

The emission characteristics play a major contribution while selecting the optimal fuel mixture. Fig.7.54. When engine, running at pure diesel mode the excess oxygen in air reacts with the carbon content to perform carbon oxidation.

As the load increased up to 75%, carbon oxidation achieves it means formation of CO. and as load increases from 75% to full load, there was a sharp increase in CO formation due to higher smoke limit.

7.2.1.3. Carbon monoxide Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.54 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of biodiesel blends compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17.5CR.

The optimum CO at 75% load is observed for dual blend B20 i.e. 0.12% by Volume. Maximum CO is found to be 0.145% by volume for diesel mode at 75% load.

Fig.7.55. Hydrocarbons in engine exhaust is one of most important emissions characteristics that directly effects the BTE. Biodiesel shows reduction in unburnt HC emission compared to diesel for all loading condition. Reduction in unburnt HC emission of biodiesel blends is mainly due to more oxygen content which leads to better combustion. HC content will be low for B20 i.e. at 75% load that is 50 ppm, formation of HC contents will be low because of proper mixing of fuel droplets with air, since maximum brake thermal efficiency is for B20 i.e. WCOBD10+PSBD10 substitution. An optimum blending ratio its HC content at full load was found to be 56 ppm.

7.2.1.4. Hydrocarbons Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.55. Variation of HC with BMEP using three different combinations of biodiesel blends in diesel is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200 bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.56. Shown the NOx concentration varies linearly with load on engine. With increasing load, overall fuel-air ratio increases, resulting an increase in the average gas temperature in the combustion chamber and this increases the NOx. High biodiesel blends substantially increased the NOx emissions.

Maximum NOx content was observed for B30 at full load condition i.e. 1200 ppm, which is 9.38 % above that of pure diesel mode.

7.2.1.5. NOx emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.56. Variation of NOx with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17CR.

Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – I of Test Phase – 2

- WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency(Fig.7.53) when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum brake specific fuel consumption(Fig.7.2), therefore it is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.
- This optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in diesel i.e. WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20), is additional experimented to improve BTE by induction of hydrogen as third biofuel.
- Treble biofuel in diesel is experimented with the hydrogen induction at the rate of 4 lpm, 6 lpm and 8lpm.

7.2.1.6. Brake thermal efficiency of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.57 . Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.57. For all the fuels used BTE increases with increasing load steeply except at full load. It is also noticed that as the biodiesel is blended with diesel for B20 share, Brake thermal efficiency decreases, but as third biofuel in the form of hydrogen in inducted at three different ratio of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm then BTE increases for all treble blends than compared to pure diesel.

Under 75% load condition BTE for B20 + 4lpm, B20 + 6lpm and B20 + 8lpm is found to be 27.94% and 30.81% and 29.31% respectively. And for BTE for pure diesel mode is 26.19%. And for B20, BTE is 23.55%, which is 10.08% less than that of pure diesel mode.

Blend WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) +6lpm of hydrogen substitution is having higher Brake thermal efficiency when compared to the other blends.

7.2.1.7. Brake specific energy consumption of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.58 . Variation of Brake specific energy consumption with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.58. It is notice that as the percentage of hydrogen substitutions increases, brake specific energy consumption reduces due to the uniformity of mixture formation in hydrogen which in turn assists the diesel combustion thereby improving the combustion of diesel. The lowest brake specific energy consumption of 9249.5 kJ/kw-hr is obtained at 6lpm hydrogen enrichment at 75% load compared to pure diesel of 12467.19 kJ/kw-h.

For 8lpm hydrogen enrichment at 75% load, brake specific energy consumption is 9582.3 kJ/kWh.

7.2.1.8. CO emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.59 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.59. It is depicted that the formation of CO was minimum for treble fuel mode at any percentage substitution of hydrogen in assessment with pure diesel. Since hydrogen is free from carbon content, hence formation of CO emissions decreases up to 75% load for pure diesel mode and even for all hydrogen substitutions.

But as the load increased to full load, there was a sharp increase in CO formation because the fine size droplets did not have sufficient time for complete combustion. Hence at 75% load the optimal CO content is observed for B20 with 6lpm is 0.1 %vol.

Fig.7.60 the reduction in unburnt HC emission of biodiesel blends is solely due to higher oxygen content which leads to better combustion. Since maximum brake thermal efficiency is for 6lpm of hydrogen substitution, hence formation of HC contents will be low because of proper mixing of fuel droplets with air. 6lpm of hydrogen substitution was elected as an optimum value and its HC content at 75% load was found to be 46.55 ppm.

7.2.1.9. HC emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.60 . Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.61. NOx concentration varies linearly with the load of engine. With the increasing load, the overall fuel-air ratio increases, resulting in an increase in the average gas temperature in the combustion chamber and this increases the NOx. High biodiesel blends substantially increased the NOx emissions.

7.2.1.10. NOx emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.61 . Variation of NOx emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 17.5CR.

Maximum NOx content was observed for 8lpm of hydrogen substitution at full load condition i.e. 1412 ppm, which is 28.71% above that of pure diesel mode.

7.2.2. Case – II for 225bar

Performance, combustion and emissions effect on of a diesel engine with variable fuel mixture at IOP of 225bar and CR of 17.5.

7.2.2.1. Brake thermal efficiency

Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel mode as represented in the below Fig.7.62.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.62. BTE VS BMEP at IOP of 225bar and 17.5CR

Fig.7.62 depicts that as the biodiesel is blended with diesel for all proportions, Brake thermal efficiency decreases. Under 75% load condition at WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D (B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) percentage of substitution, Brake thermal efficiency is found to be 16.6%, 12.99% and 18.4% lesser than that of pure diesel mode respectively. It is also noticed that for all the fuels used BTE increases with increasing load steeply except at full load.

7.2.2.2 Brake specific fuel consumption

Variation of BSFC with BMEP using different fuel mixture as mention in test Phase -1, case II i.e. pure diesel, B10, B20 and B30 at IOP of 225bar and 17.5CR are show in the figure 7.63

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.63 . Variation of BSFC with BMP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17.5.CR.

Biodiesel fuel is delivered into engine on volumetric basis/stroke, therefor, larger quantity of biodiesel fed into the engine. Thus, to produce same power, more biodiesel fuel is needed since biodiesel has low calorific value compared with diesel fuel.

BSFC decreases as the load increases for all the test fuels and is lowest for diesel fuel mode, since Brake thermal efficiency was above that of any percentage of biodiesel substitution; hence brake specific fuel consumption has minimum value for pure diesel operation at all loading conditions compared to different biodiesel substitution. Minimum BSFC observed for pure diesel at 75% load is 0.28 kg/kW-hr and for blended diesel at 75% load for WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) is 0.346 kg/kW-hr

7.2.2.3. Carbon monoxide Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.64 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.64 reveals as the load increase up to 75%, the formation of CO decrease at any share of biodiesel blend in a dual fuel mode. In a pure diesel mode operation, due to the presence of more excess air, the carbon oxidation reaction is almost completed the considerable amount of CO is not produced until the smoke limit is reached.

But as the load was increased from 75% to full load, CO formation increases rapidly, because CO is a product of incomplete combustion due to insufficient amount of air in Air Fuel mixture or less time in cycle for completion of combustion, at full load. The optimum CO content is observed for B20 at 75% load i.e. 0.08% by volume.

7.2.2.4. Hydrocarbons Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.65. Variation of HC with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17.5CR.

As depicted in the Fig.7.65, that there is a continuous increment in HC content as the load increases. HC content will be low for B20 at 75% load i.e. 48 ppm, formation of HC contents will be low because of proper mixing of fuel droplets with air, since maximum brake thermal efficiency is for B20 i.e. for 20% bio diesel substitution, an optimum blending ratio its HC content at full load is 54 ppm.

7.2.2.5. NOx emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.66. Variation of NOx with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.66. NOx concentration varies linearly with load of engine. With increase in load, the overall fuel-air ratio increases, resulting an increase in the average gas temperature in the combustion chamber and this increases the NOx.

The in-cylinder temperature was very high which leads to the formation of NOx due to the presence of excess of oxygen. High biodiesel blends substantially increased the NOx emissions.

At 225bar and 17.5CR maximum amount of NOx were found B30 i.e. 1338 ppm, which is 17.06% above that of pure diesel mode. And for optimum blend it is 1276.6 ppm.

Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – II of Test Phase – 2

- WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency (Fig.7.62) when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption (Fig.7.63), therefore it is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.
- This optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in diesel i.e. WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20), is additional experimented to improve BTE by induction of hydrogen as third biofuel.
- Treble biofuel in diesel is experimented with the hydrogen induction at the rate of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm.

7.2.2.6. Brake thermal efficiency of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.67 . Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.67 shows that as the biodiesel is blended with diesel for B20 share, Brake thermal efficiency decreases, but as third biofuel in the form of hydrogen in inducted at three different ratio of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm then BTE increases for all treble blends than compared to pure diesel 70.

Under 75% load condition BTE for B20 + 4lpm, B20 + 6lpm and B20 + 8lpm is found to be 4.9% and 10.98% and 10.27%, above that of pure diesel mode respectively. For B20 BTE is 12.99% less than that of pure diesel mode.

Blend WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) +6lpm of hydrogen substitution is having higher Brake thermal efficiency when compared to the other blends.

Fig.7.68 the lowest brake specific energy consumption of 8150 kJ/kw-hr is obtained at 6lpm hydrogen enrichment at 75% load compared to pure diesel of 8150 kJ/kw-hr. For 8lpm hydrogen enrichment at 75% load, brake specific energy consumption is 8351 kJ/kw-hr.

Fig.7.69. It is depicted that the formation of CO was minimum for treble fuel mode at any percentage substitution of hydrogen in Assessment with pure diesel. Since hydrogen is free from carbon content, hence formation of CO emissions decreases up to 75% load for pure diesel mode and even for all hydrogen substitutions, as the load increased from 75%, there was a sharp increase in CO formation because the fine size droplets did not have sufficient time for complete combustion. Hence at 75% the optimal CO content i.e. for B20 + 6lpm is 0.0558% vol.

7.2.2.7. Brake specific energy consumption of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.68 . Variation of Brake specific energy consumption with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.70 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel + H2 and is minimum for B20 + 6lpm H2 at all loads. At 75% load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 51.7 ppm and 44.65 ppm respectively.

Fig.7.71 shows NOx concentration varies linearly with load of engine. With increase in load, the overall fuel-air ratio increases, resulting in an increase in average gas temperature in combustion chamber and this increases NOx. High biodiesel blends substantially increased the NOx emissions. Maximum NOx content was observed for 8lpm of hydrogen substitution at full load condition i.e. 1501 ppm, which is 31.3% above that of pure diesel mode.

7.2.2.8. CO emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.69 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR.

7.2.3. Case – III for 250bar

Performance, combustion and emissions effect on of a diesel engine with variable fuel mixture at IOP of 250bar and CR of 17.5

7.2.2.9. HC emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.70 . Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17.5CR.

7.2.2.10. NOx emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.71 . Variation of NOx emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17.5CR.

7.2.3.1. Brake thermal efficiency

Brake thermal efficiency is the measure of performance of the engine calculated as the ratio of brake power generated to the heat input 71. Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel mode as represented in the below Fig.7.72.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.72. BTE VS BMEP at IOP of 250bar and 17.5CR

Fig.7.72. For all fuels used BTE increases with increasing load steeply except at full load. As the biodiesel is blended with diesel for all proportions, BTE decreases. Under 75% load condition at WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D (B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) percentage of substitution, Brake thermal efficiency is found to be 18.8%, 14.49% and 15.69% lesser than that of pure diesel mode respectively.

As the IOP was increased from 225 to 250bar, though the fuel droplets size be smaller but there will not be much more time for homogeneous mixing leads to decrease in ignition delay decelerates the BTE in Assessment with IOP of 225bar.

7.2.3.2 Brake specific fuel consumption

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.73 . Variation of BSFC with BMP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.73. As the IOP was increased from 225 to 250 bar, though the fuel droplets size be smaller but there will not be much more time for homogeneous mixing leads to decrease in ignition delay decelerates the Brake thermal efficiency in Assessment with 225bar. Thus brake specific fuel consumption increased at 250bar and engine performance starts deteriorating. BSFC is observed at B20 at 75% load is 0.3519 kg/kW-hr and it is 23.47% above that of pure diesel mode.

7.2.3.3. Carbon monoxide Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.74 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.74. It was depicted that the formation of CO was minimum for dual fuel mode at any percentage substitution of biodiesel in assessment with pure diesel. As the CO content gradually decreased up to 75% load for pure diesel mode and even for all biodiesel substitutions.

But as the load increased to full load, there was a sharp increase in CO formation because at 250bar the fine size droplets did not have sufficient time for complete combustion. Hence at 75% load the optimal CO content is observed for B20 i.e. 0.1% by volume.

7.2.3.4. Hydrocarbons Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.75. Variation of HC with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.75. Hydrocarbon content is low for B20. At 75% load i.e. 49 ppm, formation of HC contents will be low because of proper mixing of fuel droplets with air, since maximum brake thermal efficiency is for B20 i.e. for 20% bio diesel substitution, an optimum blending ratio its HC content at full load is found to be 55 ppm.

Fig.7.76. The NOx concentration varies linearly with load of engine. As load increases, overall fuel-air ratio increases, resulting in an increase in average gas temperature in the combustion chamber and this increases NOx. High biodiesel blends substantially increased the NOx emissions. Maximum NOx content was observed for B30 at full load condition i.e. 1280 ppm, which is 16.36 % above that of pure diesel mode.

7.2.3.5. NOx emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.76. Variation of NOx with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17.5CR.

Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – III of Test Phase – 2

- WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency (Fig.7.72) when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption (Fig.7.73), therefore it is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.
- This optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in diesel i.e. WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20), is additional experimented to improve BTE by induction of hydrogen as third biofuel.
- Treble biofuel in diesel is experimented with the hydrogen induction at the rate of 4 lpm, 6 lpm and 8lpm.

7.2.3.6. Brake thermal efficiency of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.77 . Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.77. As the biodiesel is blended with diesel for B20 share, Brake thermal efficiency decreases, but as third biofuel in the form of hydrogen in inducted at three different ratio of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm then BTE increases for all treble blends than compared to pure diesel.

Under 75% load condition BTE for B20 + 4lpm, B20 + 6lpm and B20 + 8lpm is found to be 7.66% and 16.37% and 13.68%, above that of pure diesel mode respectively. And for B20 BTE is 14.49 % less than that of pure diesel mode.

Blend WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) +6lpm of hydrogen substitution is having higher Brake thermal efficiency when compared to the other blends.

7.2.3.7. Brake specific energy consumption of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.78 . Variation of Brake specific energy consumption with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.78 the lowest brake specific energy consumption of 9115.27 kJ/kWh is obtained at 6lpm hydrogen enrichment at 75% load compared to pure diesel of 12154.65 kJ/kWh. For 8lpm hydrogen enrichment at 75% load, brake specific energy consumption is 9919.09 kJ/kWh.

Fig.7.79. It is depicted that the formation of CO was minimum for treble fuel mode at any percentage substitution of hydrogen in Assessment with pure diesel. Since hydrogen is free from carbon content, hence formation of CO emissions decreases up to 75% load for pure diesel mode and even for all hydrogen substitutions.

But as the load increased to full load, there was a sharp increase in CO formation because the fine size droplets did not have sufficient time for complete combustion. Hence at 75% load the optimal CO content is for B20 + 6lpm hydrogen substitution 0.07068% vol.

7.2.3.8. CO emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.79 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.80 the reduction in unburnt HC emission of biodiesel blends is solely due to higher oxygen content which may results in better combustion. Biodiesel blend exhibit less HC emission at lesser engine load and more HC emission a higher engine loads, this may be due to relatively less oxygen available for reaction when more fuel is injected into cylinder at high engine load, the low calorific value and high viscosity of biodiesel oil results in higher HC emissions. Since maximum brake thermal efficiency is for 6lpm of hydrogen substitution, hence formation of HC contents will be low because of proper mixing of fuel droplets with air. 6lpm of hydrogen substitution was elected as an optimum value and its HC content at 75% load is found to be 45.95 ppm.

7.2.3.9. HC emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.80 . Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 17.5CR.

Fig.7.81. NOx concentration varies linearly with load of engine. As load increases, the overall fuel-air ratio increases, resulting in an increase in average gas temperature in the combustion chamber and this increases the NOx.

High biodiesel blends substantially increased the NOx emissions. Maximum NOx content was observed for 8lpm of hydrogen substitution at full load condition i.e. 1501 ppm, which is 36.45% above that of pure diesel mode.

7.2.3.10. NOx emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.81 . Variation of NOx emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 17CR.

7.2.4. Attributes of Test Phase – 2

From the inference of test-1 to test-7 in each Case – I to Case - III of Test Phase – 2

- As it is noticed in all 3 cases of Test Phase – 1that WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption, therefore B20 is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.

- Fig.7.82. Shows WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) is alone plotted for different IOP against BTE for different loads.

- Maximum BTE is for IOP of 225bar all load for 17.5CR

7.2.4.1. Optimum Loading of Test Phase – 2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.82. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 17.5CR

- Maximum BTE is for 75% load and is equal to 24.31% at IOP of 225bar.

- Brake thermal efficiency for full load is 24.15%.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.83. BSFC vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 17.5CR

- For all loading condition BSFC at first decreases with the increase of IOP from 200bar to 225bar and then increase when IOP is 250bar.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.84. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 17.5CR

- 75% load is having the minimum BSFC of 0.34 kg/kw-hr at 225bar IOP.

- When hydrogen is induced to enhance combustion of optimal dual biodiesel blend in three different proportions, BTE at first increases to peak value at 225bar for all loading, then decrease for 250bar.

- The Maximum BTE is for 75% load at 225bar which is 31.3% and at full load it is 30.2%.

- Fig.7.85. Shows WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) +6lpm is alone plotted for different IOP against BSFC for different loads.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.85 BSEC vs. IOP for B20 blend and 6lpm hydrogen induction at different load at 17.5CR

- It is also noticed from Fig.7.53, Fig.7.63 and Fig.7.73 that for all the fuels used BSFC decreases with increasing load steeply except at full load. Therefore the optimise loading is 75%.

- Minimum BSEC is at 75% load 8151 kJ/kw-hr at 225bar

- For full load BSEC is 9115.27 kJ/kW-hr

7.2.4.2. Optimum Injection opening pressure of Test Phase – 2

- BTE at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%, from Figure 7.86 it is observed that with increase of IOP,BTE increases and then with further increase in IOP,BTE decrease. IOP of 225bar has more BTE for all blends and pilot fuel.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.86. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its biodiesel blends at 75% load and at 17.5CR.

- With increasing injection pressure in CI engine, ignition delay is reduced and the fuel may be completely burnt to produce large amount of heat energy.

- The percentage fall in BTE from IOP-225bar to IOP-250bar is being 5.211%, 6.056%, 7.486% and 7.465% for pure diesel, WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D(B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) respectively.

- Increase of injection pressure to 250bar decreases ignition delay period, which in turn decreases homogenous mixing possibility leading to incomplete combustion hence less BTE.

- Therefore the optimum IOP selected is 225bar

- At this optimum parameters so obtain i.e. blend B20 and IOP of 225bar, hydrogen induction is done to improve BTE.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.87. BSFC vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at optimal load at 17.5CR

- BSFC at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%, from Fig.7.87 it is observed that with the increase of Injection opening pressure BSFC decreases and later with further increase in Injection opening pressure BSFC increase. IOP of 225bar has more BTE for all blends and pilot fuel.

- Increase of Injection opening pressure to 250bar decreases the ignition delay period, which then decreases homogenous mixing possibility leading to incomplete combustion hence less Brake thermal efficiency.

- For the optimal IOP i.e. 225bar the CO emission is minimum for B20 i.e. 0.08% Vol, for diesel 0.1123% Vol.

- HC emission is less for B20. HC emissions are 51.7 ppm and 48 ppm and 51.2 ppm for diesel and optimal blend and B30 respectively, at IOP of 225bar.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.88. CO vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 17.5CR

- Maximum NOx is for B30 at 225bar i.e. 1080 ppm, for diesel it is 915 ppm and for the optimal blend it is 996.6 ppm.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.89. HC vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 17.5CR

- Therefore the optimum IOP selected is 225bar.

- At this optimum parameters so obtain i.e. blend B20 and IOP of 225bar, hydrogen induction is done to improve BTE.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.90. NOx vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 17.5CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.91. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 17.5CR

- Fig.7.91. Reveals that BTE increases with increase in hydrogen induction in biodiesel blend B20.

- It also shows that with the increase of IOP BTE at first increases then with further increase to 250bar the BTE falls from peak value.

- The optimum Injection opening pressure being 225bar where the Maximum BTE is noticed i.e. for B20 + 6lpm hydrogen 31.31% and for pure diesel and dual biodiesel is 27.44% 24.31% respectively

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.92. BSEC vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 17.5CR

- BSEC at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%

- The optimum Injection opening pressure being 225bar where the minimum BSEC is noticed i.e. for B20 + 6lpm hydrogen 8151 kJ/kw-hr and for pure diesel and dual biodiesel is 11432 kJ/kw-hr and 14535 kJ/kw-hr respectively.

- At optimal IOP of 225bar minimum CO emission is for B20 + 6lpm H2 0.0558% Vol. and for B20 + 8lpm H2 is 0.07068% Vol.

- Minimum HC is observed at IOP of 225bar, which are 44.65 ppm and 46.55 ppm for B20 + 6lpm H2 and B20 + 8lpm H2 respectively.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.93. CO vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 17.5CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.94. HC vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 17.5CR

- NOx increases with increase of IOP at first then fall again for further increase of IOP.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.95. NOx vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 17.5CR

- Maximum NOx is observed at IOP of 225bar, which is 1212 ppm and 1142 ppm for B20 + 8lpm H2 and B20 + 6lpm H2 respectively.

7.2.5 Combustion Characteristic of Test Phase – 2

From figure 7.2.5.1 it is observed that cylinder pressure found maximum for B20 + 6lpm H2 then followed by B20 + 8lpm H2, B20-4lpm H2, pure diesel and B20 respectively.

The peak in-cylinder pressure, when engine is operating under pure diesel, B20, B20 + 4lpm H2, B20 + 6lpm H2, B20 + 8lpm H2 is found to be 57.8468, 56.65733, 61.46889,63.41364 and 62.5623 bar respectively.

7.2.5.1 Cylinder Pressure

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.96 Variation of in-cylinder pressure at optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively for 18CR.

7.2.5.2 Net heat release rate

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.97 Variation of net heat release rate for optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively at 17.5CR.

From the figure 7.2.5.2 maximum heat release rate for B20 + 8lpm at 357 degree is 63.42 J/deg, B20 + 6lpm at 358 degree is 65.50 J/deg, B20 + 4lpm at 359 degee is 59.38 J/deg, B20 biodiesel at 361 degree is 53.32 J/deg and for diesel at 360 degree is 55.00 J/Deg.

7.2.5.3 Fuel line pressure

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.98 Variation of fuel line pressure for optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively at 17.5CR.

Figure 7.2.5.3 Shows that fuel line pressure is maximum at 345 degree crank angle, 278 bar, 264 bar, 300 bar, 324 bar and 308 bar for pure diesel, B20, B20-4lpm H2, B20-6lpm H2, and B20-8 lpm H2 respectively.

7.3. Test Phase – 3

Performance, combustion and emissions of a diesel engine with varying dual biodiesel blends in pure diesel and combustion additional assisted by variable hydrogen induction at Injection opening pressures of 200bar, 225bar, 250bar and modified compression ratio 18.

This test was carried out by varying the Injection opening pressure as 200 bar, 225bar and 250bar and modified compression ratio of 18. Dual biodiesel are blended in pure diesel in the share of WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D (B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) percentage substitution by varying load from 25% to 100 % at an increment of 25% at constant speed of 1500 rpm. The performance characteristics are calculated.

The influences of IOP on emissions are measured and the combustion characteristics such as in cylinder pressure, NHRR and fuel line pressure are also measured. To assist combustion and improve BTE hydrogen is inducted in air at different rates of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm.

7.3.1. Case – I for 200bar

Effect on performance, combustion and emissions of a diesel engine with variable fuel mixture at IOP of 200bar and CR of 18

Fig.7.99. It is depicted that Brake thermal efficiency increases with increasing load on engine steeply unto 75% load, there after decrease till 100% loading for all test fuels. As the blending ratio are varied Brake thermal efficiency decreases at first for B10 then increases for B20 and then fall for B30.

7.3.1.1. Brake thermal efficiency

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.99. Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18CR.

Brake thermal efficiency increases for 200bar and 18CR than engine operating at 200bar and 17CR. Load condition 75% for blends B10, B20, B30 and pure diesel brake thermal efficiency is observed to be 24.44%, 26.04%, 23.99% and 29.12% respectively. Pure diesel has higher Brake thermal efficiency than any other blend; WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) is having more BTE than any other diesel blends.

Fig.7.100, reveal BSFC decreasing with load steeply till 75% load then at full load. Minimum value is for diesel fallowed by dual biodiesel blended diesel fuel i.e. B20. i.e. 0.251 kg/kW-hr and 0.321 kg/kW-hr respectively at 75% load.

Fig.7.101 depicts CO emission is minimum for 75% loading for all test fuels. Additional that CO emission decreases with the addition of biodiesel blends in diesel. The minimum value is for B20 i.e. 0.12% Vol.

7.3.1.2. Brake specific fuel consumption

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.100 . Variation of BSFC with BMP using three different combinations of biodiesel blend is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18CR.

Fig.7.102 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel and is minimum for B20 at all loads. At 75% load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 are 54 ppm and 51 ppm respectively.

7.3.1.3. Carbon monoxide Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.101 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of biodiesel blends compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18CR.

From Fig.7.103 it is distinct that NOx emission for all blends is above pure diesel and increases with the increasing load. At full load its values are 1209 ppm and 1367 ppm respectively.

7.3.1.4. Hydrocarbons Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.102. Variation of HC with BMEP using three different combinations of biodiesel blends in diesel is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200 bar and 18CR.

7.3.1.5. NOx emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.103. Variation of NOx with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18CR.

Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – I of Test Phase – 3

- WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency(Fig.7.99) when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption(Fig.7.100), therefore it is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.

- This optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in diesel i.e. WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20), is additional experimented to improve BTE by induction of hydrogen as third biofuel.

- Treble biofuel in diesel is experimented with the hydrogen induction at the rate of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm.

7.3.1.6. Brake thermal efficiency of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.104 . Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18CR.

Fig.7.104 shows that Brake thermal efficiency increases beyond pure diesel for all amount of hydrogen induction. The maximum value BTE is for B20 + 6lpm at 75% load 32.84%, whereas for 4lpm and 8lpm it is 30.98% and 31.80% respectively. Pure diesel it is 29.12% and B20 is 26.04%.

Fig.7.105 it is distinct that brake specific energy consumption decreases for biodiesel blend with induction of hydrogen. Minimum BSEC for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 12154.65 kJ/kw-hr rand 9115.27 kJ/kw-hr respectively at 75% load. Mild knock is observed at full load.

7.3.1.7. Brake specific energy consumption of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.105 . Variation of Brake specific energy consumption with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 200 bar and 18CR.

7.3.1.8. CO emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.106 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18CR.

Fig.7.106 Shows CO emission is less for 75% loading for all test fuel. Additional that CO emission decreases with addition of biodiesel blends in diesel. The minimum value is for B20 + 6lpm H2 i.e. 0.0870% Vol.

7.3.1.9. HC emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.107 . Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18CR.

Fig.7.107 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel + H2 and is minimum for B20 + 6lpm H2 at all loads. At 75% load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 54 ppm and 47.5 ppm respectively.

From Fig.7.108 it is distinct that NOx emission for all blends is above pure diesel and increases with the increasing load. At full load its values are 1209 ppm and 1558 ppm respectively for pure diesel and B20 + 8lpm H2.

7.3.1.10. NOx emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.108 . Variation of NOx emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18CR.

7.3.2. Case – II for 225bar

Performance, combustion and emissions effect on of a diesel engine with variable fuel mixture at IOP of 225bar and CR of 18.

7.3.2.1. Brake thermal efficiency

Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel mode as represented in the below Fig.7.109.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.109. Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18CR.

Brake thermal efficiency increases from IOP 200bar to IOP 225bar and Under 75% load condition at IOP 225bar for blends B10, B20, B30 and pure diesel Brake thermal efficiency is observed to be 25.89%, 27.03%, 25.32% and 31.06% respectively. Whereas at IOP 200bar 24.44%, 26.04%, 23.99% and 29.12% respectively.

7.3.2.2 Brake specific fuel consumption

Variation of BSFC with BMEP using different fuel mixture as prescribed in test Phase - 1, case II i.e. pure diesel, B10, B20 and B30 at IOP of 225bar and 18CR are show in the figure 7.110

Minimum BSFC is observed for pure diesel at 75% load is 0.241 kg/kW-hr and for blended diesel at 75% load for WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) is 0.3 kg/kW-hr.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.110 . Variation of BSFC with BMP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18CR.

7.3.2.3. Carbon monoxide Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.111 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18CR.

Maximum CO content is observed for diesel is 0.11385% vol., for B20 is 0.07952%%Vol. and for B30 is 0.098% by vol. at 75% load.

7.2.2.4. Hydrocarbons Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.112. Variation of HC with BMEP using three different combinations of biodiesel blends in diesel is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18CR.

Fig.7.112 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel and is minimum for B20 at all loads. At 75% load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 are 50.09 ppm and 47 ppm respectively.

From Fig.7.113 it is distinct thatNOx emission for all blends is above pure diesel and increases with the increasing load. At full load its values are 1270 ppm and 1450 ppm for pure diesel and B30 respectively.

Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – II of Test Phase – 3

- WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency(Fig.7.109) when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption(Fig.7.110), therefore it is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.

- This optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in diesel i.e. WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20), is additional experimented to improve BTE by induction of hydrogen as third biofuel.

- Treble biofuel in diesel is experimented with the hydrogen induction at the rate of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm.

7.3.2.5. NOx emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.113. Variation of NOx with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18CR.

Fig.7.114 shows that Brake thermal efficiency increases beyond pure diesel for all amount of hydrogen induction. The maximum value of BTE is for B20 + 6lpm at 75% load is 34.98%. For pure diesel, biodiesel 4lpm and 8lpm it is 31.06%, 27.03%, 32.59% and 34% respectively.

7.3.2.6. Brake thermal efficiency of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.114 . Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18CR.

Fig.7.115 it is distinct that brake specific energy consumption decreases for biodiesel blend with induction of hydrogen. BSEC for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 11185.9 kJ/kW-hr and 7785.647 kJ/kW-hr respectively. Mild knock is observed at full loading hence the optimal mixture being B20 + 6lpm.

Fig.7.116 reveal CO emission is less for 75% loading for test fuels. Additional that CO emission decreases with the addition of biodiesel blends in diesel. The minimum value is for B20 + 6lpm H2 i.e. 0.0599% Vol.

7.3.2.7. Brake specific energy consumption of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.115 . Variation of Brake specific energy consumption with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 225 bar and 18CR.

7.3.2.8. CO emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.116 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18CR.

7.3.2.9. HC emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.117 . Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18CR.

Fig.7.117 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel + H2 and is minimum for B20 + 6lpm H2 at all loads. At 75% load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 50.09 ppm and 43.26 ppm respectively.

From Fig.7.118 it is distinct thatNOx emission for all blends is above pure diesel and increases with the increasing load. At full load its values are 1270 ppm and 1612 ppm respectively for pure diesel and B20 + 8lpm H2.

7.3.2.10. NOx emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.118 . Variation of NOx emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18CR.

7.3.3. Case – III for 250bar

Performance, combustion and emissions effect on of a diesel engine with variable fuel mixture at IOP of 250bar and CR of 18.

7.3.2.1. Brake thermal efficiency

Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel mode as represented in the below Fig.7.119.

Brake thermal efficiency decreases from IOP 225bar to IOP 250bar and for 75% load condition at IOP 250bar for blends B10, B20, B30 and pure diesel Brake thermal efficiency is observed to be 24.32%, 24.99%, 23.43% and 28.92% respectively. Whereas at IOP 225bar 25.89%, 27.03%, 25.32% and 31.06% respectively.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.119. Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18CR.

7.3.3.2 Brake specific fuel consumption

Variation of BSFC with BMEP using different fuel mixture as prescribed in test Phase - 3, case III i.e. pure diesel, B10, B20 and B30 at IOP of 250bar and 18CR are show in the figure 7.120.

Minimum BSFC is observed for pure diesel at 75% load is 0.246 kg/kW-hr and for blended diesel at full load for WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) are 0.31 kg/kW-hr.

Fig.7.121. the maximum CO content is observed for diesel i.e. 0.13% Vol., for B20 i.e. 0.1%Vol. and for B30 i.e. 0.12% by volume at 75% load.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.120 . Variation of BSFC with BMP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18CR.

7.3.3.3. Carbon monoxide Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.121 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18CR.

Fig.7.122 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel and is minimum for B20 at all loads. At 75% load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 are 52 ppm and 49 ppm respectively.

7.3.3.4. Hydrocarbons Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.122. Variation of HC with BMEP using three different combinations of biodiesel blends in diesel is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18CR.

From Fig.7.123 it is distinct thatNOx emission for all blends is above pure diesel and increases with the increasing load. At full load its values are 1300 ppm and 1408 ppm for pure diesel and B30 respectively.

Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – III of Test Phase – 3

- WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency(Fig.7.119) when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption(Fig.7.120), therefore it is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.

7.3.3.5. NOx emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.123. Variation of NOx with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18CR.

- This optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in diesel i.e. WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20), is additional experimented to improve BTE by induction of hydrogen as third biofuel.

- Treble biofuel in diesel is experimented with the hydrogen induction at the rate of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm.

7.3.2.6. Brake thermal efficiency of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Fig.7.124 shows that Brake thermal efficiency increases beyond pure diesel for all amount of hydrogen induction. The maximum value is for B20 + 6lpm of hydrogen at 75% load is 32.82%. Other BTE are 28.92%, 24.99%, 30.98% and 32.21% for pure diesel, biodiesel, 4lpm and 8lpm respectively.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.124 . Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18CR.

7.3.3.7. Brake specific energy consumption of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Fig.7.125 it is distinct that brake specific energy consumption decreases for biodiesel blend with induction of hydrogen. BSEC for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 11433 kJ/kW-hr and 8750 kJ/kW-hr respectively. Mild knock is observed at full loading. Hence the optimal mixture being B20 + 6lpm.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.125 . Variation of Brake specific energy consumption with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 250 bar and 18CR.

7.3.3.8. CO Emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.126 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18CR.

Fig.7.126 shows CO emission is less for 75% loading for all fuels. Additional that CO emission decreases with addition of biodiesel blends in diesel. The minimum value is for B20 + 6lpm H2 i.e. 0.0618% Vol.

7.3.3.9. HC Emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.127 . Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18CR.

Fig.7.127 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel + H2 and is minimum for B20 + 6lpm H2 at all loads. At 75% load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 52 ppm and 45.25 ppm respectively.

From Fig.7.128 it is distinct thatNOx emission for all blends is above pure diesel and increases with the increasing load. At full load its values are 1300 ppm and 1529 ppm respectively for pure diesel and B20 + 8lpm H2.

7.3.3.10. NOx emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.118 . Variation of NOx emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18CR.

7.3.4. Attributes of Test Phase – 3

From the inference of test-1 to test-7 in each Case – I, Case – II and Case - III of Test Phase – 3

- As it is noticed in all 3 cases of Test Phase – 1that WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption, therefore B20 is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.

7.3.4.1. Optimum Loading of Test Phase – 3

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.129. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 18CR

- Fig.7.129. Shows WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) are alone plotted for different IOP against BTE for different loads.
- Maximum BTE is for IOP of 225bar all load for 18CR
- Maximum BTE is for 75% load and is equal to 27.03%. Mild knock is observed at full loading. Therefore optimal selected are 75% loading for IOP of 225bar. At 200bar it is 26.94%.
- Brake thermal efficiency for full load at 225bar is 26.85%.
- For all loading condition BSFC at first decreases with the increase of IOP from 200bar to 225bar and then increase when IOP is 250bar.
- 75% load is having the minimum BSFC of 0.3 kg/kW-hr at 225bar IOP.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.130. BSFC vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 18CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.131. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18CR

- When hydrogen is induced to enhance combustion of optimal dual biodiesel blend in three different proportions, BTE at first increases to peak value at 225bar for all loading, then decrease for 250bar.
- The Maximum BTE is for 75% load at 225bar which is 34.98% and at full load it is 34%.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.132 BSEC vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18CR

- Fig.7.132. Shows WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) are alone plotted for different IOP against BSFC for different loads.
- It is also noticed from Fig.7.100, Fig.7.110 and Fig.7.120 that for all the fuels used BSFC decreases with increasing load steeply except at full load. Therefore the optimise loading is 75%.
- Minimum BSEC is at 75% load 7724.4 kJ/kW-hr at 225bar
- For full load BSEC is 8736.86 kJ/kW-hr

7.3.4.2. Optimum Injection opening pressure of Test Phase – 3

Variation of BTE with brake mean effective pressure using three different combinations of hydrogen addition in optimum blending ratio of biodiesel(B20) i.e. 4lpm, 6lpm, 8lpm is compared with pure diesel and B20 at IOP of 200 bar, 225bar and 250bar at compression ratio of 18.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.133. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its biodiesel blends at 75% load and at 18CR.

- BTE at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%, from Fig.7.133, it to observe that with increase of Injection opening pressure BTE increases and later with further increase in Injection opening pressure BTE decrease. IOP of 225bar has more BTE for all blends and pilot fuel.
- With increasing injection pressure in CI engine, ignition delay is reduced and the fuel may be completely burnt to produce large amount of heat energy.
- The percentage fall in BTE from IOP-225bar to IOP-250bar is being 6.88%, 6.06%, 7.54% and 7.46% for pure diesel, WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D(B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D(B30) respectively.
- Increasing IOP to 250bar decreases ignition delay period, which in turn decreases homogenous mixing possibility leading to incomplete combustion, hence less BTE.
- Therefore the optimum IOP selected is 225bar
- At this optimum parameters so obtain i.e. blend B20 and IOP of 225bar, hydrogen induction is done to improve BTE.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.134. BSFC vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 18CR

- BSFC at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%, from Fig.7.134., it is observed that with the increase of Injection opening pressure BSFC decreases and later with further increase in Injection opening pressure BSFC increase. IOP of 225bar has more BTE for all blends and pilot fuel.
- Increasing IOP to 250bar decreases the ignition delay period, which in turn decreases homogenous mixing possibility leading to incomplete combustion hence less Brake thermal efficiency.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.135. CO vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 18CR

- For the optimal IOP i.e. 225bar the CO emission is minimum for B20 i.e. 0.079% Vol, for diesel 0.1138%.
- HC emission is minimum for B20 i.e. 47 ppm and 50.09 ppm and 49.5 ppm is for diesel and blend B30 respectively, at IOP of 225bar.
- Maximum NOx is for B30 at 225bar i.e. 1237 ppm, for diesel it is 1106.5 ppm and for the optimal blend it is 1156.39 ppm
- Therefore the optimum IOP selected is 225bar

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.136. HC vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 18CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.137. NOx vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 18CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.138. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18CR

- At this optimum parameters so obtain i.e. blend B20 and IOP of 225bar, hydrogen induction is done to improve BTE.
- Fig.7.138. Shows that BTE increases with the increases in hydrogen induction in the biodiesel blend B20.
- It also shows that with the increase of IOP BTE at first increases then with further increase to 250bar the BTE falls from peak value.
- The optimum Injection opening pressure being 225bar where the Maximum BTE is noticed i.e. for B20 + 6lpm hydrogen 34.98% and for pure diesel and dual biodiesel is 31.06% 27.03% respectively.
- BTE at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.139. BSEC vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.140. CO vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18CR

- Fig.7.139. The optimum Injection opening pressure being 225bar where the minimum BSEC is noticed i.e. for B20 + 6lpm hydrogen 7785.64kJ/kw-hr and for pure diesel and dual biodiesel is 11185.94kJ/kw-hr and 14051.46kJ/kw-hr respectively.
- At optimal IOP of 225bar minimum CO emission is for B20 + 6lpm H2 0.0599% Vol. and for B20 + 8lpm H2 is 0.06711% Vol.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.141. HC vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18CR

- Minimum HC is observed at IOP of 225bar, which is 43.26 ppm and 45.106 ppm for B20 + 6lpm H2 and B20 + 8lpm H2 respectively.
- NOx increases with increase of IOP at first then fall again for further increase of IOP.
- Maximum NOx is observed at IOP of 225bar, which is 1397 ppm and 1314 ppm for B20 + 8lpm H2 and B20 + 6lpm H2 respectively.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.142. NOx vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18CR

7.3.5 Combustion Characteristic of Test Phase – 3

From figure 7.143 it is observed that cylinder pressure found maximum for B20-6lpm H2 then followed by B20-8lpm H2, B20-4lpm H2, pure diesel and B20 respectively. The peak in-cylinder pressure at optimum load and IOP of 225bar, when engine is operating under pure diesel, B20, B20-4lpm H2, B20-6lpm H2, B20-8lpm H2 is found to be 62.89883, 61.99645, 66.83737, 68.95185 and 68.0262 bar respectively.

From the figure 7.142 maximum heat release rate for B20 + 8lpm at 356 degree is 67.46 J/deg, B20 + 6lpm at 355 degree is 70.05 J/deg, B20 + 4lpm at 358 degree is 64.55 J/deg, B20 biodiesel at 360 degree is 57.65 J/deg and for diesel at 358 degree is 59.46 J/Deg.

From figure 7.145 Shows that maximum fuel line pressure is obtain at crank angle of 345 degree, 292 bar, 277 bar, 315 bar, 340 bar and 324 bar for pure diesel, B20, B20-4lpm H2, B20-6lpm H2, and B20-8 lpm H2 respectively.

7.3.5.1 Cylinder Pressure

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.143 Variation of in-cylinder pressure at optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively for 18CR.

7.3.5.2 Net heat release rate

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.144 Variation of net heat release rate for optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively at 18CR.

7.3.5.3 Fuel line pressure

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.145 Variation of fuel line pressure for optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively at 18CR.

7.4. Test Phase – 4

Performance, combustion and emissions of a diesel engine with varying dual biodiesel blends in pure diesel and combustion additional assisted by variable hydrogen induction at Injection opening pressures of 200bar, 225bar, 250bar and modified compression ratio 18.5.

The performance, combustion and emission data is analysed by a data acquisition system and the performance parameters and emission parameters were studied with respect to BMEP and plotted as below. This test was carried out by varying the Injection opening pressure as 200 bar, 225bar and 250bar and modified compression ratio of 18. Dual biodiesel are blended in pure diesel in the share of WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D (B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) percentage substitution by varying load from 25% to 100 % at an increment of 25% at constant speed of 1500 rpm. The performance characteristics are calculated. The influences of IOP on emissions are measured and the combustion characteristics such as in cylinder pressure, NHRR and fuel line pressure are also measured. To assist combustion and improve BTE hydrogen is inducted in air at different rates of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm.

7.4.1. Case – I for 200bar

Effect on performance, combustion and emissions of a diesel engine with variable fuel mixture at IOP of 200bar and CR of 18.5

7.4.1.1. Brake thermal efficiency

Fig.7.146 shows that BTE for all biodiesel blends is lesser than pure diesel. Brake thermal efficiencies are 28.04%, 23.5%, 24.6%, and 22.6% for pure diesel, B10, B20 and B30 respectively. Blend B20 is the optimal blending ratio of dual biodiesel in diesel.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.146. Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.1.2. Brake specific fuel consumption

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.147 . Variation of BSFC with BMP using three different combinations of biodiesel blend is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18.5CR.

Fig.7.147 shows the brake specific fuel consumption for pure diesel and blended diesel for different ratios. Pure diesel is having minimum BSFC then any other test fuel fallowed by the B20 blended diesel. Brake specific fuel consumption being 0.266 kg/kW-hr and 0.3325 kg/kW-hr for pure diesel and B20 respectively.

Fig.7.148 depicts CO emission is minimum for 75% loading for all test fuels. Additional that CO emission decreases with the addition of biodiesel blends in diesel. The minimum value is for B20 i.e. 0.129% Vol.

7.4.1.3. Carbon monoxide Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.148 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of biodiesel blends compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18.5CR.

Fig.7.149 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel and is minimum for B20 at all loads. At 75% load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 are 54.2 ppm and 52.3 ppm respectively.

From Fig.7.150 it is distinct thatNOx emission for all blends is above pure diesel and increases with the increasing load. At full load its values are 1194 ppm and 1347 ppm respectively for pure diesel and B20 + 8lpm H2.

7.4.1.4. Hydrocarbons Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.149. Variation of HC with BMEP using three different combinations of biodiesel blends in diesel is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.1.5. NOx emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.150. Variation of NOx with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18.5CR.

Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – I of Test Phase – 4

- WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency (Fig.7.146) when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption (Fig.7.147), therefore it is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.

- This optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in diesel i.e. WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20), is additional experimented to improve BTE by induction of hydrogen as third biofuel.

- Treble biofuel in diesel is experimented with the hydrogen induction at the rate of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm.

7.4.1.6. Brake thermal efficiency of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Fig.7.151 shows that Brake thermal efficiency increases beyond pure diesel for all amount of hydrogen induction. The maximum value is for B20 + 6lpm H2 at 75% load 31.79%, whereas for 4lpm and 8lpm it is 29.92% and 31.39% respectively.

Fig.7.152 it is distinct that brake specific energy consumption decreases for biodiesel blend with induction of hydrogen. BSEC for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 12593 kJ/kW-hr and 10201 kJ/kW-hr respectively at 75% load. Mild knock is observed at full loading, hence the optimal mixture being B20 + 6lpm.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.151 . Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.1.7. Brake specific energy consumption of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.152 . Variation of Brake specific energy consumption with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 200 bar and 18.5CR.

Fig.7.153 depicts CO emission is minimum for 75% loading for all test fuels. Additional that CO emission decreases with the addition of biodiesel blends in diesel. The minimum value is for B20 + 6lpm H2 i.e. 0.1191% Vol.

Fig.7.154 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel + H2 and is minimum for B20 + 6pm H2 at all loads. At 75% load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 54.2 ppm and 45.75 ppm respectively.

7.4.1.8. CO emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.153 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.1.9. HC emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.154 . Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.1.10. NOx emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.155 . Variation of NOx emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar and 18.5CR.

From Fig.7.155 it is distinct that NOx emission for all blends is above pure diesel and increases with the increasing load. At full load its values are 1194 ppm and 1501 ppm respectively for pure diesel and B20 + 8lpm H2.

7.4.2. Case – II for 225bar

Effect on performance, combustion and emissions of a diesel engine with variable fuel mixture at IOP of 225bar and CR of 18.5

7.4.2.1. Brake thermal efficiency

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.156. Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18.5CR.

Fig.7.156 shows that BTE for all biodiesel blends is lesser than pure diesel. Brake thermal efficiencies are 29.92%, 24.94%, 26.03%, and 24.39% for pure diesel, B10, B20 and B30 respectively at 75% load. Blend B20 is the optimal blending ratio of dual biodiesel in diesel.

Fig.7.157 shows BSFC for pure diesel and blended diesel for different ratios. Pure diesel is having minimum BSFC then any other test fuel fallowed by the B20 blended diesel. Brake specific fuel consumption being 0.26 kg/kW-hr and 0.325 kg/kW-hr for pure diesel and B20 respectively at 75% load.

7.4.2.2. Brake specific fuel consumption

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.157 . Variation of BSFC with BMP using three different combinations of biodiesel blend is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18.5CR.

Fig.7.158 depicts CO emission is minimum for 75% loading for all test fuels. Additional that CO emission decreases with the addition of biodiesel blends in diesel. The minimum value is for B20 i.e. 0.1015% Vol.

Fig.7.159 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel and is minimum for B20 at all loads. At full load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 are 59.92 ppm and 57 ppm respectively.

7.4.2.3. Carbon monoxide Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.168 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of biodiesel blends compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.2.4. Hydrocarbons Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.159. Variation of HC with BMEP using three different combinations of biodiesel blends in diesel is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.2.5. NOx emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.160. Variation of NOx with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18.5CR.

From Fig.7.160 it is distinct thatNOx emission for all blends is above pure diesel and increases with the increasing load. At full load its values are 1239 ppm and 1401 pm respectively for pure diesel and B20 + 8lpm H2.

Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – II of Test Phase – 4

- WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency (Fig.7.156) when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption (Fig.7.157), therefore it is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.

- This optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in diesel i.e. WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20), is additional experimented to improve BTE by induction of hydrogen as third biofuel.

- Treble biofuel in diesel is experimented with the hydrogen induction at the rate of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm.

7.4.2.6. Brake thermal efficiency of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.161 . Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18.5CR.

Fig.7.161 shows that Brake thermal efficiency increases beyond pure diesel for all amount of hydrogen induction. The maximum value is for B20 + 6lpm H2 at full load 34.98%. For B20 + 4lpm and for B20 + 8lpm it is 31.39% and 32.99% respectively.

Fig.7.162 it is distinct that brake specific energy consumption decreases for biodiesel blend with induction of hydrogen. BSEC for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 11512.9 kJ/kW-hr and 8509.9 kJ/kW-hr respectively at full load. Mild knock is observed at full loading, hence the optimal mixture being B20 + 6lpm.

7.4.2.7. Brake specific energy consumption of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.162 . Variation of Brake specific energy consumption with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 225 bar and 18.5CR.

Fig.7.163 depicts CO emission is minimum for 75% loading for all test fuels. Additional that CO emission decreases with the addition of biodiesel blends and hydrogen induction in diesel. The minimum value is for B20 + 6lpm H2 i.e. 0.08596% Vol.

Fig.7.164 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel + H2 and is minimum for B20 + 6lpm H2 at all loads. At full load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 59.92 ppm and 51.47 ppm respectively.

From Fig.7.165 it is distinct thatNOx emission for all blends is above pure diesel and increases with the increasing load. At full load its values are 1259 ppm and 1578 ppm respectively for pure diesel and B20 + 8lpm H2.

7.4.2.8. CO emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.163 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.2.9. HC emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.164 . Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.2.10. NOx emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.165 . Variation of NOx emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.3. Case – III for 250bar

Effect on performance, combustion and emissions of a diesel engine with variable fuel mixture at IOP of 250bar and CR of 18.5

7.4.3.1. Brake thermal efficiency

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.166. Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18.5CR.

Fig.7.166 shows that BTE for all biodiesel blends is lesser than pure diesel. Brake thermal efficiencies are 27.85%, 23.42%, 23.76%, and 22.57% for pure diesel, B10, B20 and B30 respectively at 75% load. Blend B20 is the optimal blending ratio of dual biodiesel in diesel.

Fig.7.167 shows BSFC for pure diesel and blended diesel for different ratios. Pure diesel is having minimum BSFC then any other test fuel fallowed by the B20 blended diesel. Brake specific fuel consumption being 0.271 kg/kW-hr and 0.334 kg/kW-hr for pure diesel and B20 respectively at 75% load.

7.4.3.2. Brake specific fuel consumption

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.167 . Variation of BSFC with BMP using three different combinations of biodiesel blend is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18.5CR.

Fig.7.168 depicts CO emission is minimum for 75% loading for all test fuels. Additional that CO emission decreases with the addition of biodiesel blends in diesel. The minimum value is for B20 i.e. 0.120% Vol.

Fig.7.169 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel and is minimum for B20 at all loads. At full load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 are 60.84 ppm and 58 ppm respectively.

7.4.3.3. Carbon monoxide Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.168 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of biodiesel blends compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.3.4. Hydrocarbons Emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.169. Variation of HC with BMEP using three different combinations of biodiesel blends in diesel is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.3.5. NOx emission

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.170. Variation of NOx with BMEP using three different combinations is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18.5CR.

From Fig.7.170 it is distinct that NOx emission for all blends is above pure diesel and increases with the increasing load. At full load its values are 1239 ppm and 1371 ppm respectively for pure diesel and B30.

Inference of test-1 to test-4 in Case – III of Test Phase – 4

- WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency (Fig.7.166) when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption (Fig.7.167), therefore it is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.

- This optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in diesel i.e. WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20), is additional experimented to improve BTE by induction of hydrogen as third biofuel.

- Treble biofuel in diesel is experimented with the hydrogen induction at the rate of 4lpm, 6lpm and 8lpm.

7.4.3.6. Brake thermal efficiency of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.171 . Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18.5CR.

Fig.7.124 shows that Brake thermal efficiency increases beyond pure diesel for all amount of hydrogen induction 72. The maximum value is for B20 + 6lpm H2 at 75% load 31.99%. For B20 + 4lpm and for B20 + 8lpm it is 29.98% and 31.42% respectively.

Fig.7.172 it is distinct that brake specific energy consumption decreases for biodiesel blend with induction of hydrogen. BSEC for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 12285.94 kJ/kW-hr and 9012 kJ/kW-hr respectively at 75% load.

7.4.3.7. Brake specific energy consumption of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.172 . Variation of Brake specific energy consumption with BMEP at three different induction rate of hydrogen in B20 is compared with B20 and pure diesel at IOP of 250 bar and 18.5CR.

Fig.7.173 depicts CO emission is minimum for 75% loading for all test fuels. Additional that CO emission decreases with the addition of biodiesel blends and hydrogen induction in diesel. The minimum value is for B20 + 6lpm H2 i.e. 0.10839% Vol.

Fig.7.174 reveals that HC emission is more for pure diesel at all loads, decreases with the addition of biodiesel + H2 and is minimum for B20 + 6lpm H2 at all loads. At full load HC emission for pure diesel and B20 + 6lpm H2 are 60.84 ppm and 50.01 ppm respectively.

7.4.3.8. CO emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.173 . Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.3.9. HC emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.174 . Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18.5CR.

7.4.3.10. NOx emission of Treble Biofuel in diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.175 . Variation of NOx emission with BMEP at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar and 18.5CR.

From Fig.7.175 it is distinct thatNOx emission for all blends is above pure diesel and increases with the increasing load. At full load its values are 1239 ppm and 1545 ppm respectively for pure diesel and B20 + 8lpm H2.

7.4.4. Attributes of Test Phase – 4

From the inference of test-1 to test-7 in each Case – I, Case – II and Case - III of Test Phase – 4

- As it is noticed in all 3 cases of Test Phase – 1that WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) blend is having higher Brake thermal efficiency when compared to the other two blends and the same blend is having minimum Brake specific fuel consumption, therefore B20 is selected as an optimum blending ratio of biodiesel in pure diesel.

7.4.4.1. Optimum Loading of Test Phase – 4

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.176. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 18.5CR

- Fig.7.176. Shows WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) are alone plotted for different IOP against BTE for different loads.

- Maximum BTE is for IOP of 225bar all load for 18.5CR

- Maximum BTE is for 75% load and is equal to 26.03%. At full load mild knock is observed therefore optimal loading is selected as 75% for IOP of 225bar.

- Brake thermal efficiency for full load at IOP 225bar is 25.86%.

- For all loading condition BSFC at first decreases with the increase of IOP from 200bar to 225bar and then decrease when IOP is 250bar.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.177. BSFC vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 18.5CR

- It is also noticed from Fig.7.147, Fig.7.157 and Fig.7.167 that for all the fuels used BSFC decreases with increasing load steeply except at full load. Therefore the optimise loading is 75%.

- 75% load is having the minimum BSFC of 0.32 kg/kW-hr at 225bar IOP.

- When hydrogen is induced to enhance combustion of optimal dual biodiesel blend in three different proportions, BTE at first increases to peak value at 225bar for all loading, then decrease for 250bar.

- The Maximum BTE is for 75% load at 225bar which is 33.53% and at full load it is 32.21%.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.178. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18.5CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.179 BSEC vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18.5CR

- Fig.7.132. Shows WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D (B20) is alone plotted for different IOP against BSFC for different loads. Minimum BSEC is at 75% load 8509.94 J/kW-hr at 225bar.

- It is also noticed from Fig.7.155, Fig.7.165 and Fig.7.175 that for all the fuels used BSEC decreases with increasing load steeply except at full load. Therefore the optimise loading is 75%.

- For full load BSEC is 9012 kJ/kW-hr at 225bar.

7.4.4.2. Optimum Injection opening pressure of Test Phase – 4

Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with brake mean effective pressure using three different combinations of hydrogen addition in optimum blending ratio of biodiesel (B20) i.e. 4lpm, 6lpm, 8lpm is compared with pure diesel and B20 at IOP of 200 bar, 225 bar and 250 bar at compression ratio of 18.5.

- Fig.7.180. BTE at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%, from Fig.7.180, with increase of Injection opening pressure BTE increases and later with further increase in IOP, BTE decrease 73. IOP of 225bar has more BTE for all blends and pilot fuel.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.180. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its biodiesel blends at 75% load and at 18.5CR.

- With increasing injection pressure in CI engine, ignition delay is reduced and the fuel may be completely burnt to produce large amount of heat energy.

- The percentage fall in BTE from IOP-225bar to IOP-250bar is being 6.91%, 6.09%, 8.72% and 7.46% for pure diesel, WCOBD5 + PSBD5 + D(B10), WCOBD10 + PSBD10 + D(B20) and WCOBD15 +PSBD15 + D (B30) respectively.

- Increase of Injection opening pressure to 250bar decreases the ignition delay period, which in turn decreases homogenous mixing possibility leading to incomplete combustion hence less BTE.

- Therefore the optimum IOP selected is 225bar

- At this optimum parameters so obtain i.e. blend B20 and IOP of 225bar, hydrogen induction is done to improve BTE.

- BSFC at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%, from Fig.7.181 with increase of Injection opening pressure BSFC decreases and later with further increase in Injection opening pressure BSFC increase. IOP of 225bar has more BTE for all blends and pilot fuel.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.181. BSFC vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 18.5CR

- Increase of IOP to 250bar decreases the ignition delay period, which in turn decreases homogenous mixing possibility leading to incomplete combustion hence less Brake thermal efficiency.

- For the optimal IOP i.e. 225bar the CO emission is minimum for B20 i.e. 0.10151% Vol, for diesel 0.1164% Vol.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.182. CO vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 18.5CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.183. HC vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 18.5CR

- HC emission is minimum for B20 i.e. 51.5 ppm and 53.13 ppm for diesel at IOP of 225bar.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.184. NOx vs. IOP for Pure diesel and its B20 blend at different load at 18.5CR

- Maximum NOx is for B30 at 225bar i.e. 1205 ppm, for diesel it is 1121 ppm and for the optimal blend it is 1160 ppm

- Therefore the optimum IOP selected is 225bar

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.185. BTE vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18.5CR

- At this optimum parameters so obtain i.e. blend B20 and IOP of 225bar, hydrogen induction is done to improve BTE.

- Fig.7.185. Reveals that BTE increases with the increase in hydrogen induction in the biodiesel blend B20.

- It also shows that with the increase of IOP BTE at first increases then with further increase to 250bar the BTE falls from peak value.

- The optimum Injection opening pressure being 225bar where the Maximum BTE is noticed i.e. for B20 + 6lpm hydrogen 33.53% and for pure diesel and dual biodiesel is 29.92% 26.03% respectively.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.186. BSEC vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18.5CR

- BSEC at different IOP is plotted at the optimise loading of 75%

- The optimum Injection opening pressure being 225bar where the minimum BSEC is noticed i.e. for B20 + 6lpm hydrogen 8509.94 kJ/kw-hr and for pure diesel and dual biodiesel is 11512.95 kJ/kw-hr and 14385.41 kJ/kw-hr respectively.

- At optimal IOP of 225bar minimum CO emission is for B20 + 6lpm H2 0.08596% Vol. and for B20 + 8lpm H2 is 0.09412% Vol.

- Minimum HC is observed at IOP of 225bar, which is 53.13 ppm for diesel, 43.95ppm for B20 + 6lpm H2 and B20 + 8lpm H2 is 45.93 ppm.

- NOx increases with increase of IOP at first then fall again for further increase of IOP.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.187. CO vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18.5CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.188. HC vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18.5CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.189. NOx vs. IOP for Pure diesel, its B20 blend and three different mixture of hydrogen induction at different load at 18.5CR

- Maximum NOx is observed at IOP of 225bar, which is 1142 ppm and 1096 ppm for B20 + 8lpm H2 and B20 + 6lpm H2 respectively.

7.4.5 Combustion Characteristic of Test Phase – 4

From figure 7.190 it is observed that cylinder pressure found maximum for B20-6lpm H2 then followed by B20-8lpm H2, B20-4lpm H2, pure diesel and B20 respectively. The peak in-cylinder pressure at optimum load and IOP conditions when engine is operating under pure diesel, B20, B20-4lpm H2, B20-6lpm H2, B20-8lpm H2 is found to be 60.38288, 59.1851, 64.16388, 66.19378 and 65.30515 bar respectively.

Figure 7.191 Shows that maximum net release rate for diesel is 57.59 J/deg at crank angle 359 degree, biodiesel is 56.29 J/deg at 360 degree, B20 + 4lpm is 62.18 J/deg at 358 degree, B20 + 6lpm is 68.59 J/deg at 356 degree and B20 + 8lpm is 66.41 J/deg at 357 degree.

7.4.5.1 Cylinder Pressure

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.190 Variation of in-cylinder pressure for optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively for 18.5CR.

7.4.5.2 Net heat release rate

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.191 Variation of net heat release rate for optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively at 18.5CR.

Fig.7.191. Shows that fuel line pressure is maximum at 345 degree crank angle, 285 bar, 270 bar, 307 bar, 332 bar and 316 bar for pure diesel, B20, B20-4lpm H2, B20-6lpm H2, B20-8lpm H2 respectively.

7.4.5.3 Fuel line pressure

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.192 Variation of fuel line pressure for optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively at 18.5CR.

7.5 Optimum compression ratio of Test Phase –

1, 2, 3 and 4

- Fig.7.193 shows that Brake thermal efficiency at first increase with the increase of compression ratio up to 18 then decreases with further increase in compression ratio to 18.5 74. Maximum brake thermal efficiency is 27.03% for B20 at compression ratio of 18.

7.5.1. BTE vs. Compression ratio for biodiesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.193 Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with compression ratio using different mixtures of biodiesel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar.

7.5.2. BTE vs Compression ratio for biodiesel + H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.194 Variation of Brake thermal efficiency with compression ratio using different hydrogen mixtures to B20 is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar.

7.5.3. BSFC vs Compression ratio for biodiesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.195 Variation of BSFC with compression ratio using three different combinations of biodiesel blend is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225bar.

7.5.4. BSEC vs Compression ratio for biodiesel + H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.196 Variation of BSFC with compression ratio using three different combinations of hydrogen induction in biodiesel blend is compared with pure diesel at IOP of 200bar.

7.5.5. CO vs Compression ratio for biodiesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.197 Variation of Carbon monoxide Emission with compression ratio at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250 bar.

7.5.6. HC vs Compression ratio for biodiesel + H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.198 Variation of Hydro Carbon Emission with compression ratio at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 250bar.

7.5.7. NOx vs Compression ratio for biodiesel + H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.199 Variation of NOx emission with compression ratio at three different combinations of treble biofuel compared with pure diesel at IOP of 225 bar.

7.5.8. Cylinder Pressure vs Compression Ratios for Biodiesel + H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.200 Variation of in-cylinder pressure for optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively for varying compression ratios.

7.5.9. Fuel Line Pressure vs. Compression Ratios for

Biodiesel + H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.201 Variation of fuel line pressure for optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively for varying compression ratios.

7.5.10. Net Heat release Rate vs Compression Ratios for Biodiesel + H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.202 Variation of net heat release rate for optimal loading and IOP conditions of 75% and 225bar respectively for varying compression ratios.

- Fig.7.194 maximum thermal efficiency is 27.03% for B20 and with hydrogen induction at 8lpm it is 34% for compression ratio 18.
- Brake thermal efficiency for B20 + 6lpm H2 is 34.98% at 18 which is maximum and at 18.5 CR its value is 33.53%
- Fig.7.195 shows that minimum brake specific fuel consumption for B20 which is 0.32 kg/kW-hr only after pure diesel which is 0.255 kg/kW-hr at compression ratio of 18
- Fig.7.196 shows that brake specific energy consumption is minimum for compression ratio of 18 for all test fuels and the lowest among them is for B20 + 6lpm H2 i.e. its value is 7785.64 kJ/kW-hr. mild knock is observed at B20 + 8lpm H2 who’s BSEC is 8180 kJ/kw-hr.
- Fig.7.197 shows the CO emission for different compression ratios. Emission is lowest for 18 CR for all fuels. And the lowest is for B20 + 6lpm H2 i.e. 0.05998% vol.
- Fig.7.198 shows the HC emission for different compression ratios. HC emission is lesser for compression ratio of 18 for all fuels. The lowest is 43.26 ppm for WCO10 + PS10 + D + 6 lpm H2 at 18CR.
- Fig.7.199 shows the NOx emission for different compression ratios. NOx emission increases up to 18 compression ratio steeply for all fuels. The highest is for B30 + 8lpm H2 i.e. 1422 ppm at 18.5CR and at optimum compression ratio it is 1397 ppm.
- Fig.7.200 shows that in-cylinder pressure increases with increasing compression ratio up to 18CR, maximum for WCO10+PS10+D+6 lpm H2 i.e. 68.95 bar, but with further increase in compression ratio to 18.5 pressure drops to 68.02 bar.
- Fig.7.201 shows that fuel line pressure increases with increasing compression ratio up to 18 then fall at 18.5CR. Maximum is for WCO10+PS10+D+6 lpm H2 340 bar at 18CR.
- Fig.7.202 shows that net heat release rate increases with increasing compression ratio up to 18 then fall at 18.5CR. Maximum is for WCO10+PS10+D+6 lpm H2 70.05 J/degree.

7.6. Simulated Results and Comparison

From figure 7.203 peak pressure for pure diesel are 62.89 bar and 64.88 bar respectively for experimentation and simulation, variation of about 3.16%.

Fig.7.207. Maximum temperature of 515 Kelvin is observed at a crank angle of 364 degrees.

From figure 7.208 experimented and simulated peak pressure for 10WCOBD+10PSBD+80D are 61.99 bar and 63.85 bar respectively. Variation of about 3.0%

7.6.1. Experimental and Simulated Analysis of In-Line Cylinder Pressure for Pure diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.203. Assessment of simulated and experimental values of peak in-cylinder pressures against crank angles for pure diesel

CFD Pressure and Temperature Contour for Pure diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.204. Pressure contour at crank angle 364 degree for pure diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.205. Pressure contour at crank angle 352 degree for pure diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.206. Pressure contour at crank angle 372 degree for pure diesel

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.207. Temperature contour at crank angle 364 degrees

7.6.2. Experimental and Simulated Analysis of In-Line Cylinder Pressure for Bio diesel-B20

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.208. Assessment of simulated and experimental values of peak in-cylinder pressures against crank angles for 10WCOBD+10PSBD+80D

CFD Pressure and Temperature Contour for biodiesel 10WCOBD+10PSBD+80D

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.209. Pressure contour at crank angle 352 degree for 10WCOBD+10PSBD+80D.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.210. Pressure contour at crank angle 364 degree for 10WCOBD+10PSBD+80D.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.211. Pressure contour at crank angle 372 degree for 10WCOBD+10PSBD+80D.

Temperature of 515 Kelvin is observed at a crank angle of 360 degrees. The contour plot of the same is shown in the below figure 13.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.212. Temperature contour at crank angle 372 degree for 10WCOBD+10PSBD+80D.

7.6.3. Experimental and Simulated Analysis of In-Line Cylinder Pressure for Bio diesel-B20 + 4lpm H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.213. Assessment of simulated and experimental values of peak in-Cylinder Pressures against crank angles for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 4lpm H2

From figure 7.213 experimented and simulated top most pressure for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 4lpm H2 are 66.83bar and 68.80 bar respectively. Variation of about 2.97%

From figure 7.213 experimented and simulated peak pressure for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm H2 are 68.95bar and 70.87 bar respectively. Variation of about 2.78%

CFD Pressure and Temperature Contour for biodiesel 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 4lpm H 2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.214. Pressure contour at crank angle 352 degree for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 4lpm

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.215. Pressure contour at crank angle 364 degree for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 4lpm

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.216. Pressure contour at crank angle 372 degree for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 4lpm

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.217. Temperature contour at crank angle 364 degree for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 4lpm

7.6.4. Experimental and Simulated Analysis of In-Line

Cylinder Pressure for Bio diesel-B20 + 6lpm H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.218. Assessment of simulated and experimental values of peak in-Cylinder Pressures against crank angles for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm H2

CFD Pressure and Temperature Contour for Bio-diesel 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm H 2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.219. Pressure contour at crank angle 352 degree for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.220. Pressure contour at crank angle 364 degree for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.221. Pressure contour at crank angle 372 degree for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm

From figure 7.223 highest pressure for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 8lpm H2 are 68.02 bar and 69.94 bar respectively for experimentation and simulation, variation of about 2.82%.

Fig.7.226. Temperature of 510 Kelvin is observed at crank angle 360 degrees.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.222. Temperature contour at crank angle 364 degree for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm

7.6.5. Experimental and Simulated Analysis of In-Line

Cylinder Pressure for Bio diesel-B20 + 8lpm H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.223. Assessment of simulated and experimental values of peak in-Cylinder Pressures against crank angles for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 8lpm H2

CFD Pressure and Temperature Contour for Bio-diesel 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 8lpm H2

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.224. Pressure contour at crank angle 352 degree for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 8lpm

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.225. Pressure contour at crank angle 364 degree for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 8lpm

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.226. Pressure contour at crank angle 372 degree for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 8lpm

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.7.227. Temperature contour at crank angle 364 degree for 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 8lpm

CHAPTER – 8

Conclusions

- Optimal biodiesel blend of WCOBD + PSBD in pure diesel is 10WCOBD+10PSBD+80D, having highest BTE and lesser BSFC.

- Test fuel 10WCOBD+10PSBD+80D has the minimum CO and HC emissions. However NOx emissions are higher.

- Optimal blending ratio (10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D) when additional mixed with third biofuel i.e. hydrogen gas of varying composition, then the test fuel i.e. B20 + 6lpm H2 (10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm H2) is having higher BTE.

- Optimal loading is perceived at 75% load for all test Fuels besides for optimal test fuels i.e. 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D and 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm H2.

- Optimal IOP of 225bar is perceived for all test fuels besides for optimal fuel of 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D and 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D +6lpm H2.

- Optimal compression ratio of 18 is noticed for all test fuels as well as for optimal fuels of 10WCOBD+10PSBD+80D and 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm H2.

- Maximum BTE for dual bio-diesel, 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D at IOP 225bar and 75% loading for compression ratio 18 is 27.03%.

- Maximum BTE for treble bio-fuel, 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm H2 at IOP 225bar and 75% loading for compression ratio 18 is 34.98%.

- Minimum BSFC for dual bio-diesel, 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D at IOP 225bar and 75% loading for compression ratio 18 is 0.32 kg/kW-hr.

- Minimum BSEC for treble bio-fuel, 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm H2 at IOP 225bar and 75% loading for compression ratio 18 is 7785.64 kJ/kw-hr.

- Maximum in-Cylinder Pressure at IOP 225bar and 75% loading for dual bio-diesel B20 + 6lpm H2 is 70.05 J/Deg. at compression ratio 18.

- Maximum net heat release rate at IOP 225bar and 75% loading for dual bio-diesel B20 + 6lpm H2 is 68.95185 bar at compression ratio 18.

- Maximum fuel line pressure at IOP 225bar and 75% loading for dual bio-diesel B20 + 6lpm H2 is 340 bar at compression ratio 18.

- Experimental and simulated in-line Cylinder Pressure percentage difference for dual bio-diesel, i.e. 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D is 3.01%

- Experimental and simulated in-line Cylinder Pressure percentage difference for diesel is 3.16%

- Experimental and simulated in-line Cylinder Pressure percentage difference for treble bio-fuel, i.e. 10WCOBD + 10PSBD + 80D + 6lpm H2 is 2.78%.

- The peak pressure moved slightly closer to TDC on increasing the compression ratio from 17 to 18 i.e. from 378 degree to 366 degree.

- NHRR growths with growing compression ratio of 17 to 17.5 and 18, with further increase to 18.5 NHRR decreases.

Table 8.1 Comparison of BTE, BSFC & BSEC for different CR at IOP of 225bar and 75% loading

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 8.2 In-Cylinder Pressure, bar – at IOP 225bar and 75% loading for different CR

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 8.3 Maximum NHRR (J/Deg.) and Crank Angle (degree) for different CR at IOP of 225bar

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 8.4 Maximum fuel line pressure (bar) at Crank Angle (degree) for different CR and 225bar IOP

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 8.5 E xperimental and simulated in-line cylinder pressure for 18 CR and IOP 225bar

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

References

01. R. Anand, G.R.Kannanb, P.Karthikeyanc, “A study of the performance emission and combustion characteristics of a di diesel engine using waste cooking oil methyl ester-ethanol blends” Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition IMECE2012 November 9-15, 2012, Houston, Texas, USA IMECE2012-86705.International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER) www.ijmer.com Vol.3, Issue.2, March-April. 2013 pp-832-838 ISSN: 2249-6645

02. American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) e-ISSN : 2320-0847 p-ISSN : 2320-0936 Volume-03, Issue-02, pp-184-190 ajer.org.

03. S. Mahalingam, P.Suresh Mohan Kumar, R.V. Pranesh, Member, IAENG “Experimental Study of Performance and Emission Characteristics of a Bio Dual Fuel Blends in Diesel Engine for Variation of Injection Pressures”. ISBN: 978-988-19251-0-7 ISSN: 2078-0958 (Print); ISSN: 2078-0966 (Online)Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2013 Vol I, WCE 2013, July 3 - 5, 2013, London, U.K.

04. eltis.org/sites/eltis/files/par_alternative_fuels_vol1_en_6.doc

05. hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Soon-your-car-will-run-on-used-cooking-oil/Article1-1023773. aspx Sudhir, C. V., N.

06. Y. Sharma, and P. Mohanan. “Potential of waste cooking oils as biodiesel feedstock.”Emirates journal for engineering research12.3 (2007): 69-75.

07. Sudhir CV, Sharma NY, Mohanan P, ―Potential of waste cooking oils as biodiesel feedstock Emirates, J Energy Resources, 12(3), 2007, pp: 69–75.

08. Mulimani, H.; Hebbal, O. D.; Navindgi, M. C. (2012) Extraction of Biodiesel from Vegetable Oils and Their Comparisons, International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Technology, 2(2), 242-250.

09. Madhujit Deb, Arindam Majumder, Rahul Banerjee, SastryG.R.K., BoseP.K. (2014). A Taguchi-Fuzzy based multi- objective optimization study on the soot- NOx- BTHE characteristics of an existing CI engine under dual fuel operation with hydrogen. Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 0360-3199.

10. Lim, T.K. & Dordrecht: Springer. (2010). "palm+stearin" Medicinal and non-medicinal edible plants. p. 338.ISBN 9789048186600

11. Gunstone, Frank D. & Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. (2011). "palm+stearin" Vegetable Oils in Food Technology Composition, Properties and Uses. ISBN 9781444339901.

12. palmoilworld. org/about_palmoil.html

13. palmoilhealth.org/faq/what-is-palm-olein-palm-stearin-and-super-palm-olein/

14. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement.

15. Math MC, Kumar SP, Chetty SV. Technologies for biodiesel production from used cooking oil—a review. Energy Sustain Develop 2010; 14:339–45.

16. Häussinger, Peter; Lohmüller, Reiner; Watson, Allan M. (2011). "Hydrogen, 1. Properties and Occurrence".Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. doi: 10.1002/14356007. a13_297.pub2.ISBN978-3-527-30673-2.

17. energy. gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-electrolysis.

18. Amann, C.A., Cylinder-pressure measurement and its use in engine research. SAE 852067, 1985.

19. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-electrolysis.

20. Deshmane VG, Gogate PR, Pandit AB. Ultrasound-assisted synthesis of biodiesel from palm fatty acid distillate. Ind Eng Chem Res 2009; 48:7923–7.

21. K. V. Krishna1, G. R. K. Sastry and M. V. S. M. Krishna. “Analysis of EGR Coupled Less Heat Rejection Model of Diesel Engine with Blends of Jatropha Biodiesel, Diesel and Diethyl Ether: An Experimental Approach”. International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering. Volume 15, Issue 1 pp. 5097-5109 March 2018 © Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia.

22. X. Lang, A. K. Dalai, N. N. Bakhashi and M. J. Reaney,“Preparation and Characterization of Biodiesels from Va- rious Bio-Oils,” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 80, No. 1, 2002, pp. 53-62. doi:10. 1016/S0960-8524(01)00051-7.

23. M. Canakci and J. Van Gerpen, “A Pilot Plant to Produce Biodiesel from High Free Fatty Acid Feedstocks,” Jour-nal of the American Society of Agricultural and Biologi-cal Engineers, Vol. 46, No. 4, 2003, pp. 945-954.

24. M. G. Kulkarni and A. K. Dalai, “Waste Cooking Oil— An Economical Source for Biodiesel: A Review,” Indus- trial & Engineering Chemistry Research, Vol. 45, No. 9, 2006, pp. 2901-2913. doi:10.1021/ie0510526

25. S. D. Romano and P. A. Sorichetti, ‘Dielectric Spectroscopy in Biodiesel Production and Characterization’, 2011.

26. Toukoniitty B, Mikkola JP, Murzin DY, Salmi T. Utilization of electromagnetic and acoustic irradiation in enhancing heterogeneous catalytic reactions. Appl Catal A: Gen 2005;279:1–22

27. Veljkovic VB, Avramovic JM, Stamenkovic OS. Biodiesel production by ultrasound-assisted transesterification: state of the art and the perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:1193–209.

28. B. Freedman, R. O. Butterfield and E. H. Pryde, “Trans- sterification Kinetics of Soybean Oil,” Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, Vol. 63, No. 10, 1986, pp. 1375-1380.

29. Shilpi Das and Ashish Jha. “Waste Cooking Oil – Revolution in Biodiesel Production”. Fermentation Technology. Volume 6 • Issue 2 • 1000143, 2017.

30. Demirbas A., Present and future transportation fuels, Energy Sources Part A (30), 2008d, pp: 1473–1483.

31. Kinast, J.A., 2001, "Production of biodiesels from multiple feedstocks and properties of biodiesels and biodiesel/diesel blends,‖ Des Plaines, National Renewable Energy, Laboratory Report, Department of Energy, U.S.

32. Supple, B., Howard-Hildige, R., Gonzalez-Gomez, and E., Leahy, J.J., ―The effect of steam treating waste cooking oil on the yield of methyl ester,‖ J. Am. Oil Soc. Chem. 79 (2), 1999, pp: 175– 178.

33. Heywood, J.B., Internal combustion engine fundamentals. Automotive Technology.1988: McGraw-Hill Book Company, ISBN 0-07.

34. Lapuerta, M, Herreros, JM, Lyons, LL, Garcıa-Contreras, R, and Briceno, Y, ―Effect of the alcohol type used in the production of waste cooking oil biodiesel on diesel performance and emissions,‖ Fuel, 87, 2008, pp: 3161–9.

35. Armas O, Lapuerta, M. and Rodrıguez-Ferna´ndez, ―Effect of biodiesel diesel engine emissions,‖ Prog Energy Combust Sci., 34, 2008, pp: 198–223.

36. Azman, A., Shahrul, S. M., Chan, A., Noorhazliza, M. K., & HMS, Q. (2012). Level of knowledge, attitude and practice of night market food outlet operators in Kuala Lumpur regarding the usage of repeatedly heated cooking oil. Medical Journal of Malaysia, 67(1), 91-101.

37. Pantzaris, T.P.: ISBN 967-961-015-2 (2000).

38. Kok Leong Theam, Aminul Islam, Yun Hin Taufiq-Yap, Yuen May Choo and Siow Hwa Teo. “Binary metal-doped methoxide catalyst for biodiesel production from palm stearin”. Springer Science + Business Media Dordrecht 2015.

39. D. Subramaniam, A. Murugesan and A. Avinash. “A comparative estimation of C.I. engine fuelled with methyl esters of punnai, neem and waste cooking oil" International Journal Of Energy And Environment Volume 4, Issue 5, 2013 pp.859-870

40. Kegl B, Hribernik A. Experimental analysis of injection characteristics using biodiesel fuel. Energy Fuel 2006;20:2239–48.

41. Kumar MS, Ramesh A, Nagalingam B. An experimental comparison of methods to use methanol and Jatropha oil in a compression ignition engine. Biomass Bioenergy 2003;25:309–18.

42. Jindal S, 2010 , Experimental investigation of the effect of compression ratio and injection pressure in a direct injection diesel engine running on Jatropha methyl ester. Applied Thermal Engineering, 30, pp.422-448.

43. S. Mahalingam, P.Suresh Mohan Kumar, R.V. Pranesh. “Experimental Study of Performance and Emission Characteristics of a Bio Dual FuelBlends in Diesel Engine for Variation of Injection Pressures” Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2013 Vol I,WCE 2013, July 3 - 5, 2013, London, U.K

44. Gumus M. Evaluation of hazelnut kernel oil of Turkish origin as alternative fuel in diesel engines. Renew Energy 2008;33:2448–57.

45. Singh Yadav V, Soni SL, Sharma D. Performance and emission studies of direct injection CI engine in duel fuel mode (hydrogen–diesel) with EGR. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012; 37:3807–17.

46. Korakianitis T, Namasivayam AM, Crookes RJ. Diesel and rapeseed methylester (RME) pilot fuels for hydrogen and natural gas dual-fuel combustion in compression–ignition engines. Fuel 2011;90:2384–95.

47. H. An, W.M. Yang, A. Maghbouli, J. Li, S.K. Chou, K.J. Chua, J.X. Wang, and L. Li “Numerical investigation on the combustion and emission characteristics of a hydrogen assisted biodiesel combustion in a diesel engine” Fuel 120 (2014) 186–194

48. Crookes RJ, Korakianitis T, Namasivayam AM. Hydrogen dual-fuelling of compression ignition engines with emulsified biodiesel as pilot fuel. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:13329–44.

49. Sukjit E, Herreros JM, Dearn KD, Tsolakis A, Theinnoi K. Effect of hydrogen on butanol–biodiesel blends in compression ignition engines. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013; 38:1624–35.

50. R. Anand, G.R.Kannanb, P.Karthikeyanc, “A study of the performance emission and combustion characteristics of a di diesel engine using waste cooking oil methyl ester-ethanol blends” Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition IMECE2012 November 9-15, 2012, Houston, Texas, USA IMECE2012-86705.International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER) www.ijmer.com Vol.3, Issue.2, March-April. 2013 pp-832-838 ISSN: 2249-6645.

51. Huseyin Aydin, Cumali IlKilic, 2010, “Effect of ethanol blending with biodiesel on engine performance and exhaust emissions in a CI engine”, Applied Thermal Engineering, Vol.30, pp.1199-1204.

52. Suresh Kumar K, Velraj R, Ganesan R. Performance and exhaust emission characteristics of a C.Iengine fueled with Pungamia Pinnata Methyl Ester (PPME) and its blends with diesel, International Journal of Renew Energy 2008; 33: 2294.

53. Muralidharan K, Vasudevan D, Sheeba KN. Performance, emission and combustion characteristics of biodiesel fuelled variable compression ratio engine. Energy 2011;36: 5385 e 93.

54. Qi DH, Chen H, Geng LM, Bian YZ. Experimental studies on the combustion characteristics and performance of a direct injection engine fueled with biodiesel/ diesel blends. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51: 2985e92.

55. M. Mofijur, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, A.E. Atabani. “Evaluation of biodiesel blending, engine performance and emissions characteristics of Jatropha curcas methyl ester: Malaysian perspective” Energy 55 (2013) 879e887

56. Lei Zhu, Cheung, C.S., Zhang ,W.G. and Zhen Huang 2010, “Emissions characteristics of a diesel engine operating on biodiesel and biodiesel lended with ethanol and methanol”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 408, pp.914-921.

57. J. IsaacJoshua Ramesh Lalvani, M.Parthasarathy, B.Dhinesh, and K.Annamalai. “Pooled effect of injection pressure and turbulence inducer piston on performance, combustion, and emission characteristics of a DI diesel engine powered with biodiesel blend”. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 0147-6513/& 2015 Elsevier Inc.

58. R. Anand, G.R.Kannanb, P.Karthikeyanc, “A study of the performance emission and combustion characteristics of a di diesel engine using waste cooking oil methyl ester-ethanol blends” Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition IMECE2012 November 9-15, 2012, Houston, Texas, USA.

59. Amann, C.A., Cylinder-pressure measurement and its use in engine research. SAE 852067, 1985.

60. M. Mofijur, H.H. Masjuki, M.A. Kalam, A.E. Atabani. “Evaluation of biodiesel blending, engine performance and emissions characteristics of Jatropha curcas methyl ester: Malaysian perspective” Energy 55 (2013) 879e887

61. M. Gumus. “A comprehensive experimental investigation of combustion and heat release characteristics of a biodiesel (hazelnut kernel oil methyl ester) fueled direct injection compression ignition engine”. Fuel 89 (2010) 2802–2814

62. Kumar MS, Ramesh A, Nagalingam B. An experimental comparison of methods to use methanol and Jatropha oil in a compression ignition engine. Biomass Bioenergy 2003;25:309–18.

63. M. Gumus. “A comprehensive experimental investigation of combustion and heat release characteristics of a biodiesel (hazelnut kernel oil methyl ester) fueled direct injection compression ignition engine”. Fuel 89 (2010) 2802–2814

64. Jindal S, 2010 , Experimental investigation of the effect of compression ratio and injection pressure in a direct injection diesel engine running on Jatropha methyl ester. Applied Thermal Engineering, 30, pp.422-448.

65. R. Vidya Sagar Raju, V. Nageswara Reddy, B. Dinesh Babu, Dr. R. Meenakshi Reddy, Dr. G. Sreenivasa Rao “Performance and Emission Analysis on Single Cylinder Diesel Engine Using Dual Fuels” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September – 2013

66. Tsolakis A, Megaritis A, Wyszynski ML, Theinnoi K. Engine performance and emissions of a diesel engine operating on diesel-RME (rapeseed methyl ester) blends with exhaust gas recirculation. Energy 2007; 32:2072e80.

67. Lin B-F, Huang J-H, Huang D-Y. Experimental study of the effects of vegetable oil methyl ester on DI diesel engine performance characteristics and pollutant emissions. Fuel 2009; 88:1779e85.

68. Huseyin Aydin, Cumali IlKilic, 2010, “Effect of ethanol blending with biodiesel on engine performance and exhaust emissions in a CI engine”, Applied Thermal Engineering, Vol.30, pp.1199-1204.

69. Demirbas, A., ―Present and future transportation fuels,‖ Energy Sources Part A (30), 2008 d, pp: 1473–1483.

70. H. An, W.M. Yang, A. Maghbouli, J. Li, S.K. Chou, K.J. Chua, J.X. Wang, L. Li “Numerical investigation on the combustion and emission characteristics of a hydrogen assisted biodiesel combustion in a diesel engine”. Fuel 120 (2014) 186–194.

71. Malaysian palm oil council, India http://www. mpoc.org. in/faqs-2/.

72. Sukjit E, Herreros JM, Dearn KD, Tsolakis A, Theinnoi K. Effect of hydrogen on butanol–biodiesel blends in compression ignition engines. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013; 38:1624–35.

73. Syed Azam Pasha Quadri, M. Masood, P. Ravi Kumar “Effect of pilot fuel injection operating pressure in hydrogen blended compression ignition engine: An experimental analysis” Fuel 157 (2015) 279–284.

74. V. Hariram, R. Vagesh Shangar “Influence of compression ratio on combustion and performance characteristics of direct injection compression ignition engine” Alexandria Engineering Journal (2015).

Appendix I

Specifications of Test Engine

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Appendix I-A

Specifications of Differential Pressure Transmitter

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Appendix I-B

Specifications of Dynamometer

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Appendix I-C

Specifications of Rotameter

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Appendix II

Engine Instrumentation

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Appendix III

Fuel Properties Test Reports

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Appendix IV

Bio-diesel Invoice

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Appendix V

Calibration Reports

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Appendix VI

Uncertainty Analysis

Every measurement is subject to some uncertainty. A measured result is only complete if it is accompanied by a statement of uncertainty in the measurement. Measurement uncertainties can come from measuring instrument, from the item being measured, from the environment, from the operator and from other sources. Such uncertainties can be estimated by using statistical analysis of a set of measurements and using other kind of information about the measurement process.

The measured values such as fuel time, voltage current and speed were estimated from their respective uncertainties based on normal distribution

Maximum error (E)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The uncertainties in the measured parameter current (ΔI) and voltage (ΔV), estimated by Gaussian Method, are ±0.46A and ±0.4V respectively. For fuel volume (Δt), speed (Δs) the uncertainties are taken as ±2.35 & ±0.12 respectively.

To get the realistic error limits for the computed result. The principal of RMS (root mean square method) was used to get the magnitude of error as

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Where R is the computed result function of the independent variables x1, x2, . . . .xn i.e. R=f(x1, x2, x3, . . . . xn) and x1+Δx1, x2+Δx2, . . . .xn+Δxn are error limits for measured variables, R+ΔR are the error limits for the computed results.

Using equation—(1) the uncertainties in the computed values such as brake thermal efficiency, fuel flow and brake power measurements were estimated.

The ranges and resolution of all the test devices used along with the percentage uncertainties are given in the following Table – A. For calculation of total uncertainty of the experiment the uncertainty of individual devices are considered, along with uncertainties of calculated parameters.

Table A Ranges and Resolution of the test devices.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Appendix VII

Papers Published in following International Journals are attached in complete in the following pages.

3. (IJAME), University Malaysia Pahang Publishing. ISSN: 2229-8649 (Print); ISSN: 2180-1606 (Online); Volume 14, Issue 4 pp. 4634-4648 December 2017.

4. (IJRASET), ISSN: 2321 – 9653, P. No. 1563 to 1569, Volume 5 Issue – XI November 2017. S J Impact Factor: 6.887

[...]