Alexandria Engineering Journal (2016) 55, 699–706

HO ST E D BY

Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aejwww.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Performance, emission and combustion

characteristics of a semi-adiabatic diesel engine

using cotton seed and neem kernel oil methyl esters

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: bshrigiri@gmail.com (B.M. Shrigiri).

Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria

University.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.12.0231110-0168 � 2016 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Basavaraj M. Shrigiria,*, Omprakash D. Hebbal

b, K. Hemachandra Reddy

a

a JNT University, Anantapur, Andra Pradesh, IndiabP D A College of Engineering, Kalaburagi, Karnataka, India

Received 12 October 2015; revised 11 November 2015; accepted 28 December 2015

Available online 3 February 2016

KEYWORDS

Cotton seed oil methyl ester;

Neem kernel oil methyl ester;

Low heat rejection engine;

Biodiesel;

Brake thermal efficiency;

Emission

Abstract The performance, emission and combustion characteristics of a diesel engine are inves-

tigated using two methyl esters: One obtained from cotton seed oil and other from neem kernel

oil. These two oils are transesterified using methanol and alkaline catalyst to produce the cotton

seed oil methyl ester (CSOME) and neem kernel oil methyl ester (NKOME) respectively. These bio-

diesels are used as alternative fuels in low heat rejection engine (LHR), in which the combustion

chamber temperature is increased by thermal barrier coating on piston face. Experimental investi-

gations are conducted with CSOME and NKOME in a single cylinder, four stroke, direct injection

LHR engine. It is found that, at peak load the brake thermal efficiency is lower by 5.91% and

7.07% and BSFC is higher by 28.57% and 10.71% for CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine,

respectively when compared with conventional diesel fuel used in normal engine. It is also seen that

there is an increase in NOx emission in LHR engine along with slight increase in CO, smoke and HC

emissions. From the combustion characteristics, it is found that the values of cylinder pressure for

CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine are near to the diesel fuel in normal engine.� 2016 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an

open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

The world over, energy resources are getting scarcer and

increasingly exorbitant with time. These situations have forcedthe researchers to search for alternative fuels. Vegetable oilshave the greatest potential as alternative fuels for the diesel

engines due to a very significant fact that they are renewable

in nature and could produce less exhaust emissions [1]. Biodie-sel is one of the most promising alternative fuels to meet these

problems. It is renewable, biodegradable, non toxic and hasalmost very close property to that of diesel fuel [2–6]. There-fore, in recent years systematic efforts have been made by sev-eral research workers [7–10] to use vegetable oils as fuel in

engines. The viscosity of vegetable oils is many times higherthan that of diesel fuel. The high viscosity is due to the largemolecular mass and chemical structure of vegetable oils which

in turn leads to problems in pumping, combustion andatomization in the injector systems of a diesel engine. Due tothe high viscosity, in long term operation, vegetable oils nor-

Table 1 Specification of the test engine.

Manufacturer Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., India

Model TV-SR II, naturally aspirated

Engine Single cylinder, direct injection diesel

engine

Bore/stroke/compression

ratio

87.5 mm/110 mm/17.5:1

Rated power 5.2 kW

Speed 1500 rpm, constant

Injection pressure/advance 200 bar/23� before TDC

Dynamometer Eddy current

Type of starting Manually

Air flow measurement Air box with ‘U’ tube

Exhaust gas temperature RTD thermocouple

Fuel flow measurement Burette with digital stopwatch

Governor Mechanical governing (centrifugal

type)

Sensor response Piezo electric

Time sampling 4 lsResolution crank 1� crank angle

Angle sensor 360� encoder with resolution of 1�

700 B.M. Shrigiri et al.

mally introduce the development of gumming, the formationof injector deposits, ring sticking, as well as incompatibilitywith conventional lubricating oils [11–15]. The viscosity is

reduced when triglycerides are converted into esters by transes-terification reaction. Thus, three smaller molecules of ester andone molecule of glycerin are obtained from one molecule of

fat/oil. Glycerin is removed as by-product and esters areknown as biodiesel. [16]. In normal diesel engine, about one-third of the total energy is rejected to the cooling water. The

basic concept of the low heat rejection engine is to reduce thisheat loss to the cooling water and converting the energy in theform of useful work [17]. Various important advantages of theLHR concept are reduced hydrocarbons, fuel economy, car-

bon monoxide emissions and smoke, reduced noise due to alower rate of pressure rise and higher energy in the exhaustgases [18–21]. Low cetane fuel can be used in LHR engines

[22]. Within the LHR engine concept, the combustion chamberof a diesel engine is insulated by using high temperature resis-tant materials on engine components, such as cylinder head,

valves, cylinder liners and exhaust ports. By eliminating theneed for a conventional cooling system and reducing lostenergy, the overall performance of this engine system will dras-

tically improve. This could potentially result in 50% volumeand 30% weight reductions in the entire propulsion system[23]. Some of the research works have revealed that exhaustemissions decrease because of higher combustion temperature.

Higher oxides of nitrogen are one of the major problems to beimproved in an LHR diesel engine as insulation leads to anincrease in combustion temperature by about 200–250 �C com-

pared with an identical diesel engine [24].For the investigation, the tests are conducted with CSOME,

NKOMEanddiesel in coated piston anduncoated piston engine

and then performance, emission and combustion analysis arecompared. LHR engine fueled with cotton seed oil methyl ester,neem kernel oil methyl ester and with conventional diesel engine

fuel used in normal engine are referred to by CSOME,NKOMEand DF, respectively, throughout the paper.

2. Experimental test rig, instrumentation and programme

The engine used in this study is 5.2 kW, computerized Kir-loskar make, single cylinder, four stroke, vertical, watercooled, direct injection diesel engine. The important engine

specifications are given in Table 1. Fig. 1 shows the schematicdiagram of the experimental setup used for the investigation.An eddy current dynamometer is used to load the test engine.

Exhaust emission from the engine is measured by AVL DiT-EST 1000 (Five gas analyzer) and smoke emission is measuredby AVL DiSMOKE 480 (smoke meter).

Cotton seed oil methyl ester (CSOME) is produced in a smallscale setup consisting of magnetic stirrer with heater and ther-mostat, magnetic pallet, condenser, separating flask and reac-tion flask constructed and installed at the IC Engine

Laboratory of Department of Mechanical Engineering in Poo-jya Doddappa Appa College of Engineering, Kalaburagi, Kar-nataka, India. The capacity of the reaction flask is 3 l. It consists

of three necks: one for condenser, and the others for inlet of reac-tant as well as for placing the thermometer in the thermo well toobserve the reaction temperature. Crude is selected for the

preparation of biodiesel. 3.5 g of sodium hydroxide (NaOH)and 200 ml of methyl alcohol (CH3OH) are used for esterifica-

tion of 1 l of cotton seed oil. The catalyst is dissolved in the alco-hol then the alcohol–catalyst mixture is poured into the cotton

seed oil which is heated andmixed thoroughly. The temperatureof the cotton seed oil, alcohol and catalystmixture ismaintainedat 60 �C for an hour. When the transesterification is finished the

mixture is taken into a separating funnel to settle. After the set-tlement of the biodiesel and the glycerin, the glycerin is drained.The biodiesel is washed thoroughly with pure water to remove

alcohol and catalyst residue. After washing, the biodiesel isheated to a temperature of 110 �C in order to remove the tracesof water in the form of vapors. Further, the same procedure isrepeated for the production of neem kernel oil methyl ester

(NKOME) which is used as the other biodiesel in this study.The diesel fuel, as a reference fuel, is obtained from a local sup-plier and it is used to obtain baseline data of the engine. Some

fuel properties of cotton seed oil methyl ester, neem kernel oilmethyl ester and diesel fuel are determined at the ICEngine Lab-oratory and are presented in Table 2.

Variable load tests are performed for 0, 0.52, 1.3, 2.6, 3.9and 5.2 kW at a constant rated speed of 1500 rpm, with aninjection pressure of 200 bar, and cooling water exit tempera-ture of 60 �C. A unique heating arrangement is made in the

oil filter to heat CSOME and NKOME in order to reduce theirviscosity before injecting into the test engine. The CSOME andNKOME are heated at 60 �C, and after heating the viscosity of

these methyl esters is reduced to 3.13 mm2/s and 3.15 mm2/srespectively. Fig. 2 shows the arrangement of heaters in theoil filter with thermostat. First the diesel is used as fuel in

the uncoated piston engine (normal diesel engine). After com-pletion of the test on normal diesel engine (NDE), the pistonface is coated with metal matrix composite materials. The

metal matrix thermal barrier coating is made of 25%ZrO2 + 75% Al2O3 of 0.1 mm thick, 50% ZrO2 + 50%Al2O3 of 0.1 mm thick and 100% ZrO2 of 0.1 mm thick byusing plasma coating method over the base of Ni-Cr bond coat

of 0.150 mm thickness. Fig. 3 shows the Composition of ther-mal barrier coating with dimensions. Now the engine is con-verted to a LHR condition. The same test procedure is

repeated for LHR engine using CSOME and NKOME as fuel

PT Pressure Transducer F2 Air flow T2 Jacket water outlet temperatureN Rotary encoder F3 Jacket water flow T3 Calorimeter water inlet temperature = T1Wt Weight F4 Calorimeter water flow T4 Calorimeter water outlet temperatureF1 Fuel flow T1 Jacket water inlet temperature T5 Exhaust gas to calorimeter tempera

T6 Exhaust gas from calorimeter temperature

Figure 1 Schematics of experimental setup.

Table 2 The fuel properties of diesel fuel and methyl esters.

Property Diesel CSOME NKOME

Calorific value (kJ/kg) 42600 39029 41543

Kinematic viscosity at 50� C (mm2/s) 3.12 4.02 4.08

Density (kg/m3) 831 878 896

Flash point (�C) 51 165 160

Fire point (�C) 57 175 175

Carbon residue (%) 00 0.199 0.399

Characteristics of a semi-adiabatic diesel engine 701

and results obtained are compared with that of conventionaldiesel engine fueled with diesel. The data are averaged from

100 consecutive cycles and recorded.

3. Results and discussion

The main objective of the present research work is to investi-gate the performance, emission and combustion characteristicsof piston coated engine fueled with CSOME, NKOME and

conventional diesel engine (DF) fueled with diesel fuel. The

Figure 2 Heating arrangement made in the oi

results obtained from piston coated engine are compared withthose of normal diesel engine.

3.1. Performance characteristics

Important engine performance parameters, such as brake ther-mal efficiency, brake specific fuel consumption and brake

specific energy consumption for CSOME, NKOME in LHRengine are calculated, analyzed and compared with diesel innormal engine.

The variation of brake thermal efficiency with brake powerfor CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine and diesel fuel innormal engine is shown in Fig. 4. There is a steady increase

in brake thermal efficiency as the load increases. It is foundthat, at 75% load the maximum brake thermal efficiency is lessby 5.91% and 7.07% for CSOME and NKOME in LHR

engine as compared to that of diesel fuel (DF) in normalengine. The lower brake thermal efficiency observed forCSOME and NKOME as compared to diesel fuel may bedue to fuel flow problems which are owing to higher viscosity

l filter (left) with thermostat (shown right).

Figure 3 Composition of thermal barrier coating with

dimensions.

Figure 5 Variation of BSFC with methyl esters of cotton seed oil

and neem kernel oil.

702 B.M. Shrigiri et al.

and density. Moreover, lessened combustion efficiency because

of poor fuel vaporization and atomization may also cause tolower the brake thermal efficiency for methyl esters of cottonseed oil and neem kernel oil. The maximum brake thermal effi-

ciency of CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine is 29.25% and28.89% respectively for LHR engine against 31.09% of dieselin normal engine at 75% load. However at rated load the

brake thermal efficiency values of CSOME and NKOME are27.73% and 27.85% respectively for LHR engine against29.78% of diesel in normal engine, which are 6.88% and6.48% lower than that of diesel in normal engine. From the

results it can be seen that the brake thermal efficiency forNKOME in LHR engine is near to that of diesel in normalengine.

Fig. 5 shows the variation of brake specific fuel consump-tion (BSFC) with brake power for CSOME and NKOME inLHR engine and diesel fuel in normal engine. The SFC

decreases with the increase in load. The specific fuel consump-tion of both methyl esters in LHR engine is higher comparedto that of diesel in normal engine at all loads. The reasonmay be the differences in heating value and density between

CSOME, NKOME and normal diesel. At rated load brakespecific fuel consumption of CSOME and NKOME is 0.36and 0.31 kg/kW h in LHR engine against 0.28 kg/kW h of die-

sel in normal engine. There is 28.57% and 10.71% of increasein specific fuel consumption for CSOME and NKOME inLHR engine compared to that of diesel fuel in normal engine.

From the analyses it is evident that the SFC of NKOME inLHR engine is near to diesel fuel in normal engine.

Figure 4 Variation of brake thermal efficiency with methyl esters

of cotton seed oil and neem kernel oil.

Represented in Fig. 6 is the variation of brake specific

energy consumption with brake power for CSOME, NKOMEin LHR engine and diesel in normal engine. Brake specificenergy consumption of methyl esters of cotton seed oil and

neem kernel oil is greater than that of diesel fuel in normalengine up to 50% load. The reason for this could be differencesin density and heating values between CSOME, NKOME and

diesel fuel. At rated load brake specific energy consumption ofCSOME and NKOME is 14.05 MJ/kW h and 12.87 MJ/kW hin LHR engine against 12.93 MJ/kW h of diesel in normal

engine. From the results it can be seen that the brake specificenergy consumption of NKOME in LHR engine is well com-parable with diesel fuel in normal engine.

Fig. 7 depicts comparison of exhaust gas temperature with

brake power for CSOME, NKOME in LHR engine and dieselin normal engine. The exhaust gas temperature is higher inLHR engine compared with normal diesel engine. At higher

loads, the exhaust gas temperature of CSOME and NKOMEin LHR engine is still higher than that of diesel in normalengine. The higher viscosity and poor volatility of the fuels

lead to a more dominant diffusion combustion phase than die-sel fuel, which is responsible for this. Also the late burning ofmethyl esters results in slower combustion and hence in higherexhaust gas temperature. At rated load the maximum exhaust

gas temperatures for CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine

Figure 6 Variation of BSEC with methyl esters of cotton seed oil

and neem kernel oil.

Figure 7 Variation of exhaust gas temperature with methyl

esters of cotton seed oil and neem kernel oil.

Characteristics of a semi-adiabatic diesel engine 703

are 491.27 �C and 498.3 �C respectively against 449.76 �C for

diesel fuel in normal engine, which are 9.22% and 10.79%higher than that of diesel in normal engine.

3.2. Emission characteristics

In a diesel engine smoke, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxideand unburned hydrocarbon emissions are considered as main

pollutants. In this investigation, these emissions are measuredand analyzed.

Fig. 8 shows the variation of unburned hydrocarbons (HC)

with brake power for CSOME and NKOME in LHR engineand diesel fuel in normal engine. The main reason for the pro-duction of hydrocarbons is the incomplete combustion.Unburned hydrocarbon emissions for CSOME and NKOME

in LHR engine are higher than that of diesel fuel in normalengine for the entire range of operation. The effects of higherfuel viscosity and density on the fuel spray quality could be

expected to generate higher HC emissions with methyl esters.The higher viscosity of CSOME and NKOME lead to poorcombustion due to poor atomization. The another reason for

increase in hydrocarbon emission for cotton seed oil and neemkernel oil methyl esters may be the fuels’ physical propertiessuch as viscosity and density, which have greater influence

Figure 8 Variation of unburned hydrocarbon with methyl esters

of cotton seed oil and neem kernel oil.

on HC emissions than the fuel chemical properties [25]. Atpeak load the unburned hydrocarbon for CSOME andNKOME in LHR engine is 88.67 ppm and 87.72 ppm respec-

tively against 85.65 ppm of diesel fuel in normal engine, whichare 3.52% and 2.41% higher than that of diesel in normalengine.

Fig. 9 indicates the variation of carbon monoxide (CO)with brake power for CSOME and NKOME in LHR engineand diesel in normal engine. The carbon monoxide for

CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine is higher than dieselin normal engine. It is found that, up to 25% of the load theCO level for these methyl esters of cotton seed oil and neemkernel oil in LHR engine is well comparable with diesel in nor-

mal engine. At rated load the maximum CO emissions in LHRengine for CSOME and NKOME are 0.33% and 0.43%respectively against 0.26% of diesel in normal engine, which

are 26.92% and 39.53% higher than that of diesel fuel in nor-mal engine. The reason for this could be related to fuel viscos-ity effect. The trends reveal that the combustion efficiency

decreases with methyl esters of cotton seed oil and neem kerneloil in LHR engine operation.

Depicted in Fig. 10 is the variation of oxides of nitrogen

(NOx) with brake power for CSOME and NKOME in LHRengine and diesel fuel in normal engine. The oxides of nitrogenare mainly formed due to oxidation of atmospheric nitrogen.The reactions, which result in the formation of NOx are avail-

ability of oxygen and higher temperatures. The NOx emissionsfor CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine are higher than thatfor diesel fuel in normal engine. The reason for this may be

associated with the oxygen content present in the CSOMEand NKOME, as the oxygen present in the fuels may providesupplementary oxygen for the formation of oxides of nitrogen.

It is also seen that the NOx level increases with increasingbrake power for all the test fuels. At maximum load theNOx levels for CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine are

659.25 ppm and 648.01 ppm respectively against 622.15 ppmof diesel fuel in normal engine, which are 21.67% and11.69% higher than that of diesel fuel in normal engine. TheNOx emissions with LHR engine are generally higher than

with non-LHR diesel engine. The reason for this is the highercombustion temperature.

Fig. 11 shows the variation of smoke opacity with brake

power for CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine and diesel

Figure 9 Variation of carbon monoxide with methyl esters of

cotton seed oil and neem kernel oil.

Figure 10 Variation of oxides of nitrogen with methyl esters of

cotton seed oil and neem kernel oil.

Figure 12 Variation of cylinder pressure with methyl esters of

cotton seed oil and neem kernel oil at 75% load.

704 B.M. Shrigiri et al.

in normal engine. In LHR engine the smoke emissions for

CSOME and NKOME are higher compared to that of dieselfuel in normal engine. The reason for this is the higher viscos-ity and poor atomization. The smoke levels at peak load with

CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine are 92.99% and95.01% respectively, whereas smoke level is 90.9% for dieselfuel in normal engine. The smoke level for CSOME andNKOME in LHR engine is 2.24% and 4.32% higher than die-

sel fuel in normal engine.

3.3. Combustion characteristics

In a compression ignition engine, cylinder pressure gives theinformation about the combustion efficiency. The cylinderpressure is mainly dependent on fuel burnt fraction in the ini-

tial combustion phase. In this work the cylinder pressure andcrank angle data are taken by averaging 100 cycles at 75%load. Fig. 12 shows the variation of cylinder pressure withcrank angle for CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine and

diesel fuel in normal engine. The results show that the peakpressure of both the methyl esters in LHR engine is lower com-pared to that of diesel fuel in normal engine. At 75% load,

peak pressure reaches up to the maximum of 59.27 bar,58.4 bar and 61.42 bar respectively with CSOME, NKOMEin LHR engine and diesel fuel in normal engine. This is due

Figure 11 Variation of smoke opacity with methyl esters of

cotton seed oil and neem kernel oil.

to higher viscosity and lower volatility of CSOME andNKOME, which leads to poor atomization.

Fig. 13 shows variation of net heat release rate with crank

angle for CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine and diesel innormal engine. The net heat release for CSOME and NKOMEin LHR engine is lower compared to that of diesel fuel in nor-

mal engine. The reason for this is the lower calorific value ofthese methyl esters. The premixed combustion phase withCSOME and NKOME in LHR is shorter compared to that

of diesel in normal engine, and this has resulted in lower heatrelease rate. This is the reason for lower brake thermal effi-ciency with methyl esters of cotton seed oil and neem kernel

oil in LHR engine. At 75% load, the maximum heat releaserate reaches up to a maximum of 26.49 J/deg CA, 26.74 J/deg CA and 33.31 J/deg CA respectively with CSOME andNKOME in LHR engine and diesel fuel in normal engine.

Fig. 14 shows variation of rate of pressure rise with crankangle for CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine and diesel fuelin normal engine at 75% load. The rate of pressure rise is

directly related to engine life and noise of the engine. The rateof pressure rise is higher for diesel in normal engine comparedto that of CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine. The reason

for this could be the higher viscosity and lower volatility ofmethyl esters. The maximum rate of pressure rise for CSOMEand NKOME in LHR engine and diesel in normal engine are2.8 bar/� CA, 2.67 bar/� CA and 3.04 bar/� CA respectively at

Figure 13 Variation of net heat release rate with methyl esters of

cotton seed oil and neem kernel oil at 75% load.

Figure 14 Variation of rate of pressure rise with methyl esters of

cotton seed oil and neem kernel oil at 75% load.

Characteristics of a semi-adiabatic diesel engine 705

75% load. The rate of pressure rise should be low as far as pos-

sible to reduce the engine noise and to increase the engine life.

4. Conclusion

In the present work, experimental investigations have been car-ried out on a coated and uncoated CI engine using CSOME,NKOME and diesel. The LHR engine using CSOME and

NKOME is analyzed and compared with that of diesel fuelin normal engine (uncoated). The conclusions are summarizedas follows:

� Compared with cotton seed oil methyl ester (CSOME)operation, neem kernel oil methyl ester (NKOME) resultedin better performance characteristics in LHR engine. How-

ever, compared with diesel in normal engine, the perfor-mance of the LHR engine with methyl esters is observedto be lower. The brake thermal efficiency values of CSOME

and NKOME in LHR engine are lower than that of dieselfuel in normal engine by 6.88% and 6.48%.

� At rated load, the brake specific fuel consumption values of

CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine are higher comparedto that of fuel in conventional engine by 28.57% and10.71%.

� The exhaust gas temperatures for CSOME and NKOME in

LHR engine are higher compared to that of diesel in normalengine.

� At peak load, the unburned hydrocarbon emissions for

CSOME and NKOME in LHR engine are 88.67 ppm and87.72 ppm respectively against 85.65 ppm of diesel in nor-mal engine, which are 3.52% and 2.41% higher than that

of diesel in normal engine. Further, CO emissions forCSOME and NKOME in LHR engine are higher by26.92% and 39.53% compared to that of diesel in normalengine.

� The oxides of nitrogen level for CSOME and NKOME inLHR engine are 21.67% and 11.69%, which are higher thanthat of diesel fuel in normal engine.

� The smoke levels at peak load with CSOME and NKOMEin LHR engine are 92.99% and 95.01% respectively,whereas smoke level is 90.9% for diesel fuel in normal

engine. The smoke level for CSOME and NKOME inLHR engine is 2.24% and 4.32% higher than that for dieselfuel in normal engine.

� At 75% load, the maximum pressure reaches up to the max-

imum of 59.27 bar, 58.4 bar and 61.42 bar respectively withCSOME and NKOME in LHR engine and diesel in normalengine.

� Lower heat release rates are observed with methyl esters ofcotton seed oil and neem kernel oil in LHR engine duringpremixed combustion compared to diesel fuel in normalengine.

� The maximum rate of pressure rise for CSOME, NKOMEin LHR engine and diesel in normal engine are 2.91 bar/�CA, 2.99 bar/� CA and 3.04 bar/� CA respectively at 75%

load, which are 4.27% and 1.64% lower than that of dieselin normal engine.

The above comparative study indicates the possibility ofusing the methyl esters in LHR engine. The performance, emis-sion and combustion analysis show the suitability of using cot-ton seed and neem kernel oil methyl esters as good alternative

fuels in LHR engine.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the faculty and staff of IC Engine labora-tory, Mechanical engineering department, Poojya Doddappa

Appa College of Engineering, Kalaburagi, Karnataka, India,for the help in conducting the experiment.

References

[1] E. Griffin Shay, Diesel fuel vegetable oils, Biomass Bioenergy 4

(1993) 227–242.

[2] J. Janaun, N. Ellis, Perspectives on biodiesel as a sustainable

fuel, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 1312–1320.

[3] D. Karonis, G. Anastopoulos, F. Zannikos, S. Stournas, E.

Lois, Determination of physiochemical properties of fatty acid

ethyl esters (FAEE) – diesel fuel blends. SAE Technical Paper

No. 2009-01-1788.

[4] B.K. Barnwal, M.P. Sharma, Prospects of biodiesel production

from vegetable oils in India, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 9

(2005) 363–378.

[5] K. Bozbas, Biodiesel as an alternative motor fuel: production

and policies in the European Union, Renew. Sustain. Energy

Rev. 12 (2008) 542–552.

[6] I. Lozada, J. Islas, G. Grande, Environmental and economic

feasibility of palm oil biodiesel in the Mexican transportation

sector, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 486–492.

[7] H. Masjuki, M. Sohif, Performance evaluation of palm oil diesel

blends on small engine, J. Energy Heat Mass Transfer 13 (1991)

125–133.

[8] A. Nag, K.B. de Bhattcharya, New utilizations of vegetable oils,

J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 72 (12) (1995) 1391–1394.

[9] Y. Takeda, Developmental study on jatropha curcas (Sabu dum)

oil as a substitute for diesel engine oil in Thailand, J. Agric.

Assoc. China 20 (1982) 1–9.

[10] K. Piyaporn, J. Narumon, K. Kanit, Survey of seed oils for use

as diesel fuels, J. Am. Oil. Chem. Soc. 71 (4) (1996) 471–477.

[11] T.W. Ryan, L.G. Dodge, T.J. Callahan, The effects of vegetable

oil properties on injection and combustion in two different diesel

engines, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 61 (10) (1984) 1610–1619.

[12] R.A. Korus, J. Jaiduk, C.L. Peterson, A rapid engine test to

measure injector fouling in diesel engines using vegetable oil

fuels, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 62 (11) (1985) 1563–1564.

[13] C. Rewolinski, D.L. Shaffer, Sunflower oil diesel fuel:

lubrication system contamination, J. Am. Oil. Chem. Soc. 61

(7) (1985) 1120–1124.

706 B.M. Shrigiri et al.

[14] M. Ziejewski, K.R. Kaufman, Laboratory endurance test of a

sunflower oil blend in a diesel engine, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 60

(8) (1983) 1567–1573.

[15] E.H. Pryde, Vegetable oil as diesel fuels: overview. Papers from

the symposium on vegetable oils as diesel fuels, presented at the

73rd AOCS annual meeting, Toronto, Canada, J. Am. Oil

Chem. Soc. 60 (8) (1983).

[16] M.A. Fazal, A.S.M.A. Haseeb, H.H. Masjuki, Biodiesel

feasibility study: an evaluation of material compatibility;

performance; emission and engine durability, Renew. Sustain.

Energy Rev. 15 (2) (2011) 1314–1324.

[17] R. Stone, Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy, Macmillan Education

Ltd., Middlesex (England), 1989.

[18] J.A. Gataowski, Evaluation of a Selectively-Cooled Single

Cylinder 0.5-1 Diesel engine. SAE paper (1990) No. 900693.

[19] E. Schwarz, M. Reid, W. Bryzik, E. Danielson, Combustion and

Performance Characteristics of a low Heat Rejection Engine.

SAE Technical Paper, 1993, No. 930988.

[20] W. Bryzik, R. Kamo, TACOM/Cummins Adiabatic Engine

Program. SAE paper, 1983, No. 830314.

[21] S.J. Dhinnagar, B. Nagalinga, K.V. Gopalakrishnan, Spark

Assisted Diesel Operation in a Low Compression Ratio Low

Heat Rejection Engine. SAE paper, 1992, No. 920245.

[22] Adnan Parlak, Halit Yasar, Bahari Sahin, Performance and

exhaust emission characteristics of a lower compression ratio

LHR diesel engine, Energy Convers. Manage. 44 (2003) 163–

175.

[23] A.C. Alkidas, Performance and Emissions Achievements with

an Uncooled Heavy-Duty Single-Cylinder Diesel Engine. SAE

Technical Paper, 1989, No. 890144.

[24] R. Kamo, L.S. Kamo, W. Bryzik, E.E. Schwarz, N.S.

Mavinahally, Injection Characteristics that Improve

Performance of Ceramic-Coated Diesel Engines. SAE

Technical Paper, 1999, 1999-01-0972.

[25] N.J. Barsic, A.L. Humke, Performance and emission

characteristics of a naturally aspirated diesel engine with

vegetable oil fuels, Soc. Automotive Eng. (1981) 1173–1187

810262.