Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel
Center for Energy Science, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
h i g h l i g h t s
All of biodiesel blends showed almost 7.5% higher BSFC than diesel fuel.
Diesel produces higher BP and BTE compared to biodiesel blends.
JB20 produced 7.49% and 14.90% lower CO and HC emissions compared to diesel.
JB10 produced 31.79% lower amount of smoke opacity than diesel fuel.
PB20 has lower emission and better engine performance than diesel fuel.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 January 2016
Received in revised form 26 March 2016
Accepted 4 May 2016
Available online 9 May 2016
Keywords:
Renewable energy
Diesel engine
Biodiesel
Performance
Emission and combustion
a b s t r a c t
Biodiesel is an alternative diesel fuel that is produced from renewable resources. Energy studies conducted over the last two decades focused on solutions to problems of rising fossil fuel price, increasing
dependency on foreign energy sources, and environmental concerns. Palm oil biodiesel is mostly used
in Malaysia. Engine performance and emission tests were conducted with a single-cylinder diesel engine
fueled with palm, jatropha and Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel blends (PB10, PB20, JB10, JB20, CIB10,
and CIB20) and then compared with diesel fuel at a full-load engine speed range of 10002400 rpm.
The average brake specific fuel consumption increased from 7.96% to 10.15% while operating on 10%,
and 20%, blends of palm, jatropha and C. inophyllum biodiesel. The average brake power for PB10 and
PB20 were 9.31% and 12.93% lower respectively compared with that for diesel fuel. JB10 showed higher
amount of brake specific fuel consumption than diesel and other biodiesel blends. PB20 produces comparatively lower CO and HC emissions than diesel and biodiesel blends. JB10 showed 31.09% lower smoke
opacity than diesel fuel. Diesel produces lower amount of NOX emission compared to biodiesel blends.
The higher peak cylinder pressure and heat release rate were found with CIB blends compared to diesel
fuel, palm and jatropha biodiesel blends. Results indicated that PB20 has better engine performance, and
lower emission compared with diesel and biodiesel blends. Thus, PB20 is suitable for use in diesel engines
without the need for any engine modification.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Nowadays, biodiesel plays an important role in helping overcome oil shortages and mitigating environmental effects in petroleum fuel fields worldwide [1]. Energy consumption has increased
because of the wide use of fossil fuels in power plants, transportation vehicles, electric generators, mining equipment, and locomotives [2,3]. Prices of fossil fuels, such as coal, gas, and petroleum,
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: monirulislam3103@gmail.com (I.M. Monirul), kalam@um.edu.
my (M.A. Kalam), mosarof.hossain.rubel@gmail.com (M.H. Mosarof).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.05.010
0016-2361/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
986
Nomenclature
BP
BSFC
BTE
CIB
CIME
FAC
brake power
brake specific fuel consumption
brake thermal efficiency
Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel
Calophyllum inophyllum methyl ester
fatty acid composition
FAME
GC
JB
JOME
PB
POME
987
Carbon structure
Chemical formula
Molecular mass
Methyl laurate
Methyl myristate
Methyl palmitate
Methyl palmitoleate
Methyl stearate
Methyl oleate
Methyl linoleate
Methyl linolenate
Methyl archidate
Methyl eicosenoate
Methyl behenate
Methyl lignocerate
Saturated
Mono-saturated
Polyunsaturated
12:00
14:00
16:00
16:01
18:00
18:01
18:02
18:03
20:00
20:01
22:00
24:0
CH3(CH2)10COOCH3
CH3(CH2)12COOCH3
CH3(CH2)14COOCH3
CH3(CH2)5CH@CH(CH2)7COOCH3
CH3(CH2)16CO2CH3
CH3(CH2)7CH@CH(CH2)7COOCH3
CH3(CH2)3(CH2CH@CH)2(CH2)7COOCH3
CH2(CH2CH@CH)3(CH2)7COOCH3
CH3(CH2)18COOCH3
CH3(CH2)16CH@CHCOOCH3
CH3(CH2)20COOCH3
CH3(CH2)22COOCH3
214.34
242.4
270.45
268.43
298.5
296.49
294.47
292.46
326.56
324.54
354.61
382.66
of FAC. The absolute FAC value was calculated by adding the identified peak value, and FAME was also calculated using this value.
POME consists of seven saturated (44.3%), three monounsaturated (44.2%), and two polyunsaturated (11.5%) fatty acid
compositions. JOME consists of four saturated (23.9%), two
monounsaturated (42.8%), and two polyunsaturated (32.9%) fatty
acid composition. By contrast, CIME contains four saturated
(34.6%) and six unsaturated (63.4%) fatty acid compositions.
2.3. Properties of biodiesel and its blends
The physical and chemical properties of palm, jatropha and CI
biodiesel blends, such as viscosity, density, viscosity index, cloud
point, flash point, pour point, oxidation stability, acid value, cetane
index, and calorific value, were measured according to ASTM standard methods. Table 2 shows the synopsis of equipment and test
methods used to determine fuel properties. Physical and chemical
properties of diesel, palm, jatropha and CI biodiesel blends (PB10,
PB20, JB10, JB20, CIB10, and CIB20) are shown in Table 3. Density
(40 C), dynamic viscosity (40 C), and kinematic viscosity (40 C
and 100 C) were measured using Stabinger Viscometer (model
SVM 3000, Anton Paar, UK). A bomb calorimeter (model C2000
basic calorimeter, IKA, UK) was used to measure calorific value.
The Saponification number and Iodine value were needed for calculating cetane number. The cetane number was calculated by
using Eq. (1).
Saponification Number; SN
Iodine Value;
Cetane Number;
P 560Ai
MW i
P
i
IV 254DA
MWi 5458
CN 46:3 SN 0:225 IV
1
Composition (wt.%)
POME
JOME
CIME
0.3
0.1
38.4
0.2
4.1
44.3
11.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
44.2
44.4
11.4
0
0.1
17.5
0.7
6.2
42.1
32.7
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
23.9
42.8
32.9
0
0
14.7
0.2
17.2
38.2
27.6
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.1
33.6
38.7
27.6
Table 2
List of equipments for fuel properties testing.
Property
Equipment
Manufacturer
Model
Accuracy
Density
Dynamic viscosity
Kinematic viscosity
Viscosity index
Flash point
Cloud point
Pour point
Cold filter plugging point
Oxidation stability
Calorific value
Acid value
Stabinger viscometer
Stabinger viscometer
Stabinger viscometer
Stabinger viscometer
Pensky-martens flash point tester
Cloud and pourpoint tester
Cloud and pour point tester
Cold filter plugging point tester
Biodiesel Rancimat
Basic calorimeter
Automated titration system
Anton Paar, UK
Anton Paar, UK
Anton Paar, UK
Anton Paar, UK
Norma lab, France
Norma lab, France
Norma lab, France
Norma lab, France
Metrohm, Switzerland
IKA, UK
Mettler Toledo, Switzerland
SVM 3000
SVM 3000
SVM 3000
SVM 3000
NPM 440
NTE 450
NTE 450
NTL 450
873 Rancimat
C2000
G-20 Rondolino
0.1 kg/m3
0.1 mm2/s
0.1 mm2/s
1
0.1 C
0.1 C
0.1 C
0.1 C
0.01 h
0.1%
0.001 mg KOH/g
988
Table 3
Physical and chemical properties of palm, jatropha and Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel blends.
Property
Units
Density at 40 C
Dynamic viscosity at 40 C
Kinematic viscosity at 40 C
Kinematic viscosity at 100 C
Viscosity index
Oxidation stability
Cetane number
Cloud point
Flash point
Pour point
Cold filter plugging point
Calorific value
Acid number
ASTM method
Diesel
PB10
PB20
PB100
JB10
JB20
JB100
CIB10
CIB20
CIB100
kg/m
mPa s
mm2/s
mm2/s
D4052
D445
D445
D445
D2270
EN15751
C
C
C
C
MJ/kg
mg KOH/g
D2500
D93
D97
D6371
D240
D664
834.7
0.8064
3.4926
1.358
130
35
48
8
68.5
0
5
45.6
0.072
832.6
2.8272
3.3624
1.3261
137
112.48
49
8
76.5
1
6
44.17
0.41
839.5
2.8956
3.4589
1.3479
142
67.36
50
8
77.3
1
7
43.25
0.46
857.6
3.8748
4.3847
1.7656
218
1.03
58
10
181.3
12
11
39.85
0.74
835.8
2.5374
3.7638
1.4371
133
44.8
48
3
87.6
5
5
44.28
0.31
840.5
2.7894
3.8972
1.4822
141
19.20
49
4
93.2
3
4
43.37
0.42
864.6
4.9523
4.7128
1.8025
208
0.06
54
5
183.6
3
3
39.42
0.45
825.6
2.5864
3.7318
1.4485
134
27.70
50
8
72.3
1
7
44.58
0.22
830.3
2.8044
3.7986
1.4786
137
25.19
51
8
73.1
1
6
44.06
0.24
871.8
5.0145
4.9762
1.8314
188
2.53
56
11
92.6
12
9
39.17
0.41
Table 4
Engine specification and operating conditions.
uncertainty of CO uncertainty of HC
uncertainty of NOX
2
2
Engine parameter
Conditions
Model
Type
TF 120 M
Horizontal, water cooled, single cylinder, four
stroke diesel engine
92 mm
96 mm
638 cc
2400 rpm at 7.7 kW, 10.5 Ps
Bore length
Stroke length
Displacement volume
Nominal rated power
output
Maximum rated power
output
Size
Cooling system
Lubricating system
Exhaust gas regulation
diesel and other biodiesel blends. PB10, PB20, JB10, JB20, and CIB20
exhibited 3.81%, 7.13%, 7.21%, 12.72%, and 0.51% higher BSFC than
diesel fuel, respectively. The average BSFC of the CIB10 blend were
6.98%, 11.60%, and 15.26% lower than diesel, PB10, and JB10,
respectively. This result could be attributed by the lower calorific
value of the fuel with a higher engine power output [34]. From
Fig. 2, when engine was running at low speed, diesel and biodiesel
blends showed higher BSFC. The BSFC of biodiesel blends and diesel fuel decreased with the increase in engine speed because of the
increasing ratio of fuel atomization [35]. Palm biodiesel blends
produced a higher amount of BSFC than jatropha and CI biodiesel
blends, except for JB20. For all of biodiesel blends based on the volumetric efficiency, more amount of fuel supply were needed to
produce the same engine power output. Higher density and lower
calorific value are the main factors for this result. Higher fuel consumption can be caused by the effect of volumetric fuel injection
rate with higher viscosity of biodiesel blends [36]. Therefore,
CIB10 displays lower specific fuel consumption than other biodiesel blends and diesel fuel.
989
Table 5
Details for AVL gas analyzer.
Parameter
Method
Range
Resolution
Accuracy
CO
HC
NOX
Smoke opacity
Non-dispersive infrared
Non-dispersive infrared
Electromechanical detector
Electromechanical detector
010 vol.%
020,000 ppm
05000 ppm
0100 vol.%
0.01 vol.%
1 ppm
1 ppm
0.01 vol.%
0.01 vol.%
1 ppm
1 ppm
0.01 vol.%
Table 6
Summary of the relative uncertainty and accuracy of this experiment.
Accuracy
Uncertainty
0.03 l/h
0.05 g/kW h
0.02 kW
0.5
0.01 vol.%
1 ppm
1 ppm
0.01 vol.%
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.9
0.7
1.4
Diesel
BSFC (Kg/Kwh)
Parameters
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
1000
PB10
1200
PB20
1400
JB10
1600
JB20
CIB10
CIB20
1800
2000
2200
2400
Diesel
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20
2000
2200
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2400
990
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20
24
BTE (%)
22
20
18
16
14
12
1000
1200
1400
1 600
1800
2 000
2200
2 400
with JB20. The concentrations of JB20 were 7.42% and 10.01% lower
than those of PB20 and CIB20, respectively. JB10 also showed lower
BTE than PB10 and CIB10. The average BTE of diesel was almost
higher than biodiesel blends, except for CIB10. This result can be
attributed to the lower calorific value of biodiesel blends with
higher fuel consumption. The possibility of higher efficiency can
be caused by higher output power and lower BSFC. Lower efficiency of biodiesel blends compared with diesel can be caused by
higher density, viscosity, and heating value of biodiesel. Atomization and vaporization of biodiesel blends decreased because of
higher viscosity and density, producing uneven combustion characteristics compared with diesel [41]. However, jatropha biodiesel
blends showed lower BTE than palm and C. inophyllum biodiesel
blends.
3.2. Emission characteristics
3.2.1. CO emission
The absence of fuel-borne O2 in the molecular structures of fossil fuel has led to the production of CO emissions [42]. In the combustion process, fuel burning with insufficient air supply and lower
temperature could form CO emission. The CO emissions of diesel
and biodiesel blends with variations of engine speed are shown
in Fig. 5. The lowest amount of CO emissions was produced by
PB20 at 1800 rpm and the maximum amount of CO emission was
produced by CIB20 at 2400 rpm. Diesel produces lower CO emissions than CIB10 and CIB20 do, approximately 2.33% and 4.70%
lower respectively. The average CO emissions of diesel fuel were
2.45%, 4.79%, 1.40%, and 4.29% higher than those of PB10, PB20,
JB10, and JB20, respectively. The highest average CO emissions
were produced by CIB20. PB20 produced a lower amount of CO
emissions than the other biodiesel blends. The average CO emissions of PB20 were 2.45%, 3.56%, 0.52%, 7.49%, and 9.97% lower
than those of PB10, JB10, JB20, CIB10, and CIB20, respectively. Palm
biodiesel blends produced lower amounts of CO emissions compared to jatropha and C. inophyllum biodiesel blends. These results
Diesel
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20
Diesel
0.75
0.7
0.65
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20
50
0.6
HC (ppm)
CO (% Vol)
PB10
60
0.55
0.5
0.45
40
30
20
0.4
10
0.35
0.3
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
991
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20
NOX (ppm)
400
350
300
250
200
150
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20
45
40
35
30
TDC
60
50
Somke opacity
55
50
65
Diesel
PB10
PB20
55
45
35
45
25
40
15
35
25
30
-10
20
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Diesel
450
-5
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Crank Angle CA
Fig. 9. Variations in the combustion pressure and heat release rate of diesel and
palm biodiesel blends at engine speed of 1600 rpm.
992
TDC
65
Diesel
JB10
JB20
55
50
55
45
35
45
25
40
15
35
30
-5
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
60
30
Crank Angle CA
Fig. 10. Variations in the combustion pressure and heat release rate of diesel and
jatropha biodiesel blends at engine speed of 1600 rpm.
TDC
65
Diesel
CIB10
CIB20
55
50
55
45
35
45
25
40
15
35
30
60
-5
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Crank Angle CA
Fig. 11. Variations in the combustion pressure and heat release rate of diesel and
Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel blends at engine speed of 1600 rpm.
that CIB10 exhibited a higher peak heat release rate (36.279 J/CA)
than those of diesel and other biodiesel blends. Fig. 9 shows that
the PB10 and PB20 fuels displayed peak heat release rates of
35.962 J/CA and 35.697 J/CA, respectively; these rates are approximately 1.20% and 1.95% lower, respectively, than the that of the
baseline diesel fuel. Moreover, the recorded peak heat release rates
were determined at 36.088 J/CA and 35.561 J/CA with JB10 and
JB20, respectively (Fig. 10). The highest reduction in the peak heat
release rate for JB20 was determined to be 1.33%, 1.12%, 0.38%,
1.48%, 2.02%, and 1.71% lower than diesel, PB10, PB20, JB10,
CIB10, and CIB20, respectively. These results can be attributed to
the lower calorific value of the biodiesel blends than that of the
baseline diesel fuel. The high viscosity of the biodiesel blend is
another reason for these results. Therefore, this condition may
cause slow vaporization of the biodiesel blend, thereby contributing to less premixed combustion. Another observation is that from
the peak heat release rate during the premixed combustion phase
for the biodiesel blends, the recorded peak was consistently lower
than that of the baseline diesel fuel except for the CIB blends. This
result clearly indicates that 20% of the biodiesel blends can reduce
the peak in the heat release rate during the premixed combustion
phase.
4. Conclusion
This study investigated the engine performance, emission, friction, and wear characteristics of palm and C. inophyllum biodiesel
blends. The following conclusions can be drawn based on the
experimental results.
Average BSFC was increased by 7.9610.15% while operating on
10% and 20%, blends of PB, JB and CIB. Average brake power for
PB20 and JB20 were 9.31% and 12.93% lower than that of diesel
fuel. CIB10 showed higher BTE than diesel and other biodiesel
blends did.
Average CO and HC emissions of palm biodiesel blends were
reduced more than diesel and C. inophyllum biodiesel blends
were, except for CIB10. PB20 produced 13.85% lower CO emissions than diesel fuel did. Average HC emission of PB20 and
JB20 were 9% and 10.81% lower than that of diesel fuel. The
average smoke opacity of CIB blends was lower than that of diesel and PB blends.
Average NOX emissions of diesel were lower than those of biodiesel blends. The maximum amount of NOX emissions was
found from CIB20 at approximately 337.2 ppm at 2400 rpm
engine speed. PB10 and PB20 produced lower amounts of NOX
emissions than other biodiesel blends.
The peak cylinder pressure and peak heat release rate of CIB20
were higher than those of diesel fuel, palm, and jatropha biodiesel blends in the premixed combustion zone. Each fuel type
exhibited a similar behavior for the mixing controlled phase.
In conclusion, these observations and results suggest that PB20
displays the most favorable engine performance; it also has lower
emissions in terms combustion analysis. Therefore, this blend can
be used in automobile engines without aid of any engine
modification.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thanks University of Malaya, Malaysia
for financial assistance by means of High Impact Research grant
project: Clean Diesel Technology for Military and Civilian Transport Vehicles of grant numbers UM.C/HIR/MOHE/ENG/07 and FP
051-2014B.
Appendix A
A.1. Uncertainty analysis of BSFC at engine speed 2400 rpm
Fuel
Diesel
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20
Test 1
0.451
0.455
0.478
0.459
0.506
0.398
0.433
Test 2
0.443
0.462
0.472
0.462
0.514
0.402
0.438
Test 3
0.447
0.457
0.469
0.465
0.51
0.394
0.434
Max.
0.451
0.462
0.478
0.465
0.514
0.402
0.438
Min.
0.443
0.455
0.469
0.459
0.506
0.394
0.433
Accuracy
Avg.
Uncertainty (%)
+0.05
0.05
0.501
0.512
0.528
0.515
0.564
0.452
0.488
0.393
0.447
0.405
0.4585
0.419
0.4735
0.409
0.462
0.456
0.51
0.344
0.398
0.383
0.4355
Uncertainty level
0.894855
0.763359
0.95037
0.649351
0.784314
1.005025
0.574053
0.803046
0.894855
0.763359
0.95037
0.649351
0.784314
1.005025
0.574053
0.803046
993
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Max.
Min.
Accuracy
Avg.
+0.02
0.02
Diesel
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20
4.48
4.41
4.18
4.15
3.98
4.16
4.06
4.57
4.32
4.21
4.1
4.04
4.21
4.11
4.51
4.35
4.24
4.08
4.01
4.14
4.07
4.57
4.41
4.24
4.15
4.04
4.21
4.11
4.48
4.32
4.18
4.08
3.98
4.14
4.06
4.59
4.43
4.26
4.17
4.06
4.23
4.13
4.46
4.3
4.16
4.06
3.96
4.12
4.04
Uncertainty level
Uncertainty (%)
+
4.525
4.365
4.21
4.115
4.01
4.175
4.085
0.994475
1.030928
0.712589
0.850547
0.74813
0.838323
0.611995
0.826712
0.994475
1.030928
0.712589
0.850547
0.74813
0.838323
0.611995
0.826712
Avg.
Uncertainty (%)
Diesel
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20
Test 1
0.455
0.436
0.434
0.459
0.428
0.482
0.477
Test 2
0.468
0.446
0.421
0.448
0.441
0.471
0.488
Test 3
0.475
0.441
0.432
0.455
0.43
0.466
0.481
Max.
0.475
0.446
0.434
0.459
0.441
0.482
0.488
Min.
0.455
0.436
0.421
0.448
0.428
0.466
0.477
Accuracy
+0.01
0.01
0.485
0.456
0.444
0.469
0.451
0.492
0.498
0.445
0.426
0.411
0.438
0.418
0.456
0.467
Uncertainty level
0.465
0.441
0.4275
0.4535
0.4345
0.474
0.4825
2.150538
1.133787
1.520468
1.212789
1.495972
1.687764
1.139896
1.477316
2.150538
1.133787
1.520468
1.212789
1.495972
1.687764
1.139896
1.477316
Avg.
Uncertainty (%)
Diesel
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20
Test 1
24.4
20.7
21.4
22
19.9
21.9
23.8
Test 2
25.4
21.4
20.4
21.8
20.8
21.6
23.2
Test 3
24.6
21.8
20.6
22.5
20.5
20.7
24.1
Max.
25.4
21.8
21.4
22.5
20.8
21.9
24.1
Min.
24.4
20.7
20.4
21.8
19.9
20.7
23.2
Accuracy
+1
1
26.4
22.8
22.4
23.5
21.8
22.9
25.1
23.4
19.7
19.4
20.8
18.9
19.7
22.2
Uncertainty level
24.9
21.25
20.9
22.15
20.35
21.3
23.65
2.008032
2.588235
2.392344
1.580135
2.211302
2.816901
1.902748
2.214243
2.008032
2.588235
2.392344
1.580135
2.211302
2.816901
1.902748
2.214243
Avg.
Uncertainty (%)
+
385.5
398.5
403.5
390
396.5
408
419
0.648508
0.878294
0.619579
0.512821
0.630517
0.490196
0.954654
0.676367
0.648508
0.878294
0.619579
0.512821
0.630517
0.490196
0.954654
0.676367
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Max.
Min.
Accuracy
+1
1
Diesel
PB10
PB20
JB10
JB20
CIB10
CIB20
383
395
406
388
399
406
416
388
402
401
392
394
410
423
387
397
405
390
395
408
415
388
402
406
392
399
410
423
383
395
401
388
394
406
415
389
403
407
393
400
411
424
382
394
400
387
393
405
414
Uncertainty level
994
References
[1] Giakoumis EG. A statistical investigation of biodiesel effects on regulated
exhaust emissions during transient cycles. Appl Energy 2012;98:27391.
[2] Ahmed S, Hassan MH, Kalam MA, Rahman SA, Abedin MJ, Shahir A. An
experimental investigation of biodiesel production, characterization, engine
performance, emission and noise of Brassica juncea methyl ester and its blends.
J Clean Prod 2014;79:7481.
[3] Senthil R, Sivakumar E, Silambarasan R. Effect of di ethyl ether on the
performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine using biodiesel
eucalyptus oil blends. RSC Adv 2015;5:5401927.
[4] Sanjid A, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Rahman SA, Abedin M, Palash S. Production of
palm and jatropha based biodiesel and investigation of palmjatropha
combined blend properties, performance, exhaust emission and noise in an
unmodified diesel engine. J Clean Prod 2014;65:295303.
[5] Gerpen JV. Biodiesel processing and production. Fuel Process Technol
2005;86:1097107.
[6] Shahabuddin M, Liaquat AM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Mofijur M. Ignition delay,
combustion and emission characteristics of diesel engine fueled with biodiesel.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;21:62332.
[7] Hu Z, Tan P, Yan X, Lou D. Life cycle energy, environment and economic
assessment of soybean-based biodiesel as an alternative automotive fuel in
China. Energy 2008;33:16548.
[8] Qi DH, Geng LM, Chen H, Bian YZ, Liu J, Ren XC. Combustion and performance
evaluation of a diesel engine fueled with biodiesel produced from soybean
crude oil. Renew Energy 2009;34:270613.
[9] Takase M, Zhao T, Zhang M, Chen Y, Liu H, Yang L, et al. An expatiate review of
neem, jatropha, rubber and karanja as multipurpose non-edible biodiesel
resources and comparison of their fuel, engine and emission properties. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;43:495520.
[10] Oltean-Dumbrava C, Watts G, Miah A. Transport infrastructure: making more
sustainable decisions for noise reduction. J Clean Prod 2013;42:5868.
[11] Palash S, Kalam M, Masjuki H, Arbab M, Masum B, Sanjid A. Impacts of NOx
reducing antioxidant additive on performance and emissions of a multicylinder diesel engine fueled with Jatropha biodiesel blends. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;77:57785.
[12] Rizwanul Fattah IM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Wakil MA, Ashraful AM, Shahir
SA. Experimental investigation of performance and regulated emissions of a
diesel engine with Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel blends accompanied by
oxidation inhibitors. Energy Convers Manage 2014;83:23240.
[13] Abedin MJ, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Sanjid A, Rahman SMA, Fattah IMR.
Performance, emissions, and heat losses of palm and jatropha biodiesel blends
in a diesel engine. Ind Crops Prod 2014;59:96104.
[14] Mosarof MH, Kalam MA, Masjuki HH, Ashraful AM, Rashed MM, Imdadul HK,
et al. Implementation of palm biodiesel based on economic aspects,
performance, emission, and wear characteristics. Energy Convers Manage
2015;105:61729.
[15] Ruhul A, Kalam M, Masjuki H, Alabdulkarem A, Atabani A, Fattah IR, et al.
Production, characterization, engine performance and emission characteristics
of Croton megalocarpus and Ceiba pentandra complementary blends in a singlecylinder diesel engine. RSC Adv 2016;6:2458495.
[16] Monirul I, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Zulkifli N, Rashedul H, Rashed M, et al. A
comprehensive review on biodiesel cold flow properties and oxidation
stability along with their improvement processes. RSC Adv 2015;5:8663155.
[17] Yamane K, Ueta A, Shimamoto Y. Influence of physical and chemical properties
of biodiesel fuels on injection, combustin and exhaust emission characteristics
in a direct injection compression ignition engine. Int J Engine Res
2001;2:24961.
[18] Lahane S, Subramanian K. Effect of different percentages of biodieseldiesel
blends on injection, spray, combustion, performance, and emission
characteristics of a diesel engine. Fuel 2015;139:53745.
[19] Arbab MI, Masjuki HH, Varman M, Kalam MA, Imtenan S, Sajjad H. Fuel
properties, engine performance and emission characteristic of common
biodiesels as a renewable and sustainable source of fuel. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2013;22:13347.
[20] Mosarof MH, Kalam MA, Masjuki HH, Alabdulkarem A, Habibullah M, Arslan A,
et al. Assessment of friction and wear characteristics of Calophyllum
inophyllum and palm biodiesel. Ind Crops Prod 2016;83:47083.
[21] Priest M, Taylor C. Automobile engine tribologyapproaching the surface.
Wear 2000;241:193203.
[22] Taylor C. Automobile engine tribologydesign considerations for efficiency
and durability. Wear 1998;221:18.
[23] Fazal M, Haseeb A, Masjuki H. Biodiesel feasibility study: an evaluation of
material compatibility; performance; emission and engine durability. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:131424.
[24] Ozsezen AN, Canakci M. Determination of performance and combustion
characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with canola and waste palm oil methyl
esters. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52:10816.
[25] Sharon H, Karuppasamy K, Soban Kumar DR, Sundaresan A. A test on DI diesel
engine fueled with methyl esters of used palm oil. Renew Energy
2012;47:1606.
[26] Dorado MP, Ballesteros E, Arnal JM, Gmez J, Lpez FJ. Exhaust emissions from
a diesel engine fueled with transesterified waste olive oil. Fuel
2003;82:13115.
[27] Mofijur M, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Atabani AE, Shahabuddin M, Palash SM,
et al. Effect of biodiesel from various feedstocks on combustion characteristics,
engine durability and materials compatibility: a review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2013;28:44155.
[28] Liaquat AM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Fazal MA, Khan AF, Fayaz H, et al. Impact
of palm biodiesel blend on injector deposit formation. Appl Energy
2013;111:88293.
[29] Ndayishimiye P, Tazerout M. Use of palm oil-based biofuel in the internal
combustion engines: performance and emissions characteristics. Energy
2011;36:17906.
[30] Ong HC, Masjuki HH, Mahlia TMI, Silitonga AS, Chong WT, Leong KY.
Optimization of biodiesel production and engine performance from high free
fatty acid Calophyllum inophyllum oil in CI diesel engine. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;81:3040.
[31] Ashraful A, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Rashedul H, Habibullah M, Rashed M, et al.
Impact of edible and non-edible biodiesel fuel properties and engine operation
condition on the performance and emission characteristics of unmodified DI
diesel engine. Biofuels 2016:114.
[32] Rizwanul Fattah IM, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Mofijur M, Abedin MJ. Effect of
antioxidant on the performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine
fueled with palm biodiesel blends. Energy Convers Manage 2014;79:26572.
[33] 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 Manage 2010;51:298592.
[34] Kivevele TT, Kristf L, Bereczky , Mbarawa MM. Engine performance, exhaust
emissions and combustion characteristics of a CI engine fuelled with croton
megalocarpus methyl ester with antioxidant. Fuel 2011;90:27829.
[35] Ozsezen AN, Canakci M, Sayin C. Effects of biodiesel from used frying palm oil
on the performance, injection, and combustion characteristics of an indirect
injection diesel engine. Energy Fuels 2008;22:1297305.
[36] Sayin C. Engine performance and exhaust gas emissions of methanol and
ethanoldiesel blends. Fuel 2010;89:34105.
[37] Lin Y-C, Hsu K-H, Chen C-B. Experimental investigation of the performance and
emissions of a heavy-duty diesel engine fueled with waste cooking oil
biodiesel/ultra-low sulfur diesel blends. Energy 2011;36:2418.
[38] Nabi MN, Rahman MM, Akhter MS. Biodiesel from cotton seed oil and its effect
on engine performance and exhaust emissions. Appl Therm Eng
2009;29:226570.
[39] Abedin M, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Sanjid A, Rahman SA, Fattah IR. Performance,
emissions, and heat losses of palm and jatropha biodiesel blends in a diesel
engine. Ind Crops Prod 2014;59:96104.
[40] Gr M, Artukoglu BD, Keskin A, Koca A. Biodiesel production from waste
animal fat and improvement of its characteristics by synthesized nickel and
magnesium additive. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:498502.
[41] Banapurmath N, Tewari P, Hosmath R. Performance and emission
characteristics of a DI compression ignition engine operated on Honge,
Jatropha and sesame oil methyl esters. Renew Energy 2008;33:19828.
[42] Gumus M, Sayin C, Canakci M. The impact of fuel injection pressure on the
exhaust emissions of a direct injection diesel engine fueled with biodiesel
diesel fuel blends. Fuel 2012;95:48694.
[43] Ong HC, Masjuki H, Mahlia T, Silitonga A, Chong W, Leong K. Optimization of
biodiesel production and engine performance from high free fatty acid
Calophyllum inophyllum oil in CI diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage
2014;81:3040.
[44] Valente OS, Pasa VMD, Belchior CRP, Sodr JR. Exhaust emissions from a diesel
power generator fuelled by waste cooking oil biodiesel. Sci Total Environ
2012;431:5761.
[45] Sanjid A, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Rahman SA, Abedin M, Reza M, et al.
Experimental investigation of palmjatropha combined blend properties,
performance, exhaust emission and noise in an unmodified diesel engine.
Procedia Eng 2014;90:397402.
[46] Ong HC, Masjuki H, Mahlia T, Silitonga A, Chong W, Yusaf T. Engine
performance and emissions using Jatropha curcas, Ceiba pentandra and
Calophyllum inophyllum biodiesel in a CI diesel engine. Energy
2014;69:42745.
[47] Keskin A, Gr M, Altiparmak D, Aydin K. Using of cotton oil soapstock
biodieseldiesel fuel blends as an alternative diesel fuel. Renew Energy
2008;33:5537.
[48] Devan PK, Mahalakshmi NV. A study of the performance, emission and
combustion characteristics of a compression ignition engine using methyl
ester of paradise oileucalyptus oil blends. Appl Energy 2009;86:67580.
[49] Celikten I, Mutlu E, Solmaz H. Variation of performance and emission
characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with diesel, rapeseed oil and
hazelnut oil methyl ester blends. Renew Energy 2012;48:1226.
_
[50] Ilkl
C, Aydn H. Determination of performance and exhaust emissions
properties of B75 in a CI engine application. Fuel Process Technol
2011;92:17905.
[51] Palash SM, Kalam MA, Masjuki HH, Arbab MI, Masum BM, Sanjid A. Impacts of
NOx reducing antioxidant additive on performance and emissions of a multicylinder diesel engine fueled with Jatropha biodiesel blends. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;77:57785.
[52] Habibullah M, Masjuki H, Kalam M, Fattah IR, Ashraful A, Mobarak H. Biodiesel
production and performance evaluation of coconut, palm and their combined
blend with diesel in a single-cylinder diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage
2014;87:2507.
995