Comparative studies on the performance and emissions of a direct injection diesel engine fueled with neem oil and pumpkin seed oil biodiesel with and without fuel preheater

Abstract

In the present experimental analysis, two non-edible oils namely neem oil and pumpkin seed oil were considered. They are converted into respective biodiesels namely neem oil methyl ester (B1) and pumpkin seed oil methyl ester (B2) through transesterification process and their physical and chemical properties were examined using ASTM standards. Diesel was used as a baseline fuel in Kirloskar TV1 model direct injection four stroke diesel engine. A fuel preheater was designed and fabricated to operate at various temperatures (60, 70, and 80 °C). Diesel showed higher brake thermal efficiency (BTE) than biodiesel samples. Lower brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) was obtained with diesel than B1 sample. B1 exhibited lower BSFC than B2 sample without preheating process. High preheating temperature (80 °C) results in lower fuel consumption for B1 sample. The engine emission characteristics like carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbon (HC), and smoke were found lower with B1 sample than diesel and B2 except oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emission. In preheating of fuel, B1 sample with high preheating temperature showed lower CO, HC, and smoke emission (except NOx) than B2 sample.

Impact of Split and Re-Entrant Type Piston Bowl Geometry Fuelled with Pre Heated Diesel and Biodiesel on a Compression Ignition Engine Characteristics

“…The re-entrant piston bowl geometry gives better results at full load than the other two piston bowl geometry. At 75% load, the toroidal piston bowl geometry shows the least emission, which concludes that the modi cation in the piston bowl geometry gives better results than the standard geometry [29][30][31][32]. Opacity is maximum at full load for D-50 o C RPBG and is lowest for D-50 o C HPBG.…”

“…The same trend is observed for the CI20 blend preheated in comparison to the CI20 blend without preheating. The study outcomes show that the emission of CO for biodiesel blends is slightly lesser than conventional diesel [29][30][31][32]. respectively.…”

“…Furthermore, for Preheated at 50 o C fuel [Refer Figure 11(b)], the experimental VE of D50 o C -HPBG, CI20 50 o C -HPBG, D 50 o C -TPBG, CI20 50 o C-TPBG, CI100 50 o C -TPBG, D 50 o C -RPBG, CI2 50 o C -RPBG, CI100 50 o C -RPBG are 84.5, 84.26, 83.98, 83.73, 83.86, 84.19, 84.6 and 83.71% respectively. VE increases for all PBGs for preheated fuels, this increase in trend for preheated fuel might be because of better atomization and complete combustion[29][30][31][32].…”

“…It indicates the BSFC of preheated CI20 fuel has less for TPBG than to other blends and geometry. Due to improved atomization and better fuel was mixing for preheated fuels resulting in the decreased BSFC [29][30][31][32]. The variation of CO emission with and without preheating for different PBGs are depicted in Figure 14 helps in the reduction of emission of CO.…”

Comparative performance evaluation of a diesel engine run on diesel and biodiesel produced from coconut oil

“…The need to know biodiesel performance benefits is very imperative. However this need has necessitated some researchers to carry out comparative performance analysis of diesel engine fuelled with biodiesel produced from different sources and diesel by Naik and Balakrishna (2019),Jindal et al, (2010),Ashutosh et al, (2013, Nidal and Khaled (2015), Ghosh and Dutta (2012), Mamilla et al,(2013), Hao et al,(2016, Al-dawody and Al-Farhany (2018), Kolhe et al, (2014), Dharmadhikari et al,(2012,Kumar and Sharma (2016), Ramakrishnan et al, (2018), Hevandro et al,(2017),Fallahipanah et al,(2011), Ahmed et al, (2016, Maharana and Chnadra (2015), Hurdogan (2016), Harinathareddy et al,(2013), Elango and Senthilkumar (2011), Mamilla (2013), Musa et al,(2016a).…”