Investigation on the effect of injection system parameters on performance

and emission characteristics of a twin cylinder compression ignition

direct injection engine fuelled with pongamia biodieseldiesel blend using
response surface methodology
M. Pandian, S.P. Sivapirakasam

, M. Udayakumar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli 620 015, Tamilnadu, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 April 2010
Received in revised form 22 November 2010
Accepted 28 January 2011
Keywords:
Biodiesel
Design of Experiments
Injection pressure
Injection timing
Nozzle tip protrusion
Response surface methodology
a b s t r a c t
This study is aimed at investigating the effect of injection system parameters such as injection pressure,
injection timing and nozzle tip protrusion on the performance and emission characteristics of a twin cyl-
inder water cooled naturally aspirated CIDI engine. Biodiesel, derived from pongamia seeds through
transesterication process, blended with diesel was used as fuel in this work. The experiments were
designed using a statistical tool known as Design of Experiments (DoE) based on response surface meth-
odology (RSM). The resultant models of the response surface methodology were helpful to predict the
response parameters such as Brake Specic Energy Consumption (BSEC), Brake Thermal Efciency
(BTE), Carbon monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbon (HC), smoke opacity and Nitrogen Oxides (NO
x
) and further
to identify the signicant interactions between the input factors on the responses. The results depicted
that the BSEC, CO, HC and smoke opacity were lesser, and BTE and NO
x
were higher at 2.5 mm nozzle
tip protrusion, 225 bar of injection pressure and at 30 BTDC of injection timing. Optimization of injection
system parameters was performed using the desirability approach of the response surface methodology
for better performance and lower NO
x
emission. An injection pressure of 225 bar, injection timing of
21 BTDC and 2.5 mm nozzle tip protrusion were found to be optimal values for the pongamia biodiesel
blended diesel fuel operation in the test engine of 7.5 kW at 1500 rpm.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Nowadays the biodiesels, derived from plant vegetable oils, ani-
mal fats, used cooking oils etc., are used as fuel in Compression
Ignition Direct Injection (CIDI) engines. Because of use of biodiesel
in the existing design of a CI engine, the combustion process may
not produce the expected performance and this leads to higher
NO
x
emission [16]. Among the various parameters of interest,
which have the potential of inuencing the performance and NO
x
emission, the injection system parameters are fundamental and
modication of these parameters is considered to be a good meth-
od of in-cylinder combustion improvement. The effects of injection
system parameters were widely studied for biodiesel fuelled CI en-
gines. From the literatures [725], it is found that the reduction in
NO
x
emission as well as improvement in engine performance and
combustion characteristics can be had by suitably optimizing the
engine injection parameters when a CI engine is to operate on a
biodiesel fuel.
Earlier studies show that the effect of injection system parame-
ters has been investigated by the approach of varying one param-
eter at a time. However the combustion process in diesel engines
are highly inuenced by the combined effect of various parameters
like airfuel ratio, injection timing, injection pressure and nozzle
geometries, etc., and operating parameters like load and speed
[26]. Hence, a systematic multivariate study could only provide a
clear and thorough knowledge on the combustion characteristics
of the engine than the approach by one variable at a time study.
In such multivariate problems, use of non linear techniques like
Design of Experiments (DoE), fuzzy logic and neural network are
suitable to explore the combined effects of input parameters.
Among the mentioned techniques, DoE is the most effective and
economical technique to evaluate the individual and combined ef-
fects of input factors on output responses. Although few studies
were reported using DoE in IC Engine applications, the study on
combined effects between injection system parameters such as
injection timing, injection pressure and nozzle tip protrusion on
the performance and emission characteristics of CI engine was
0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.01.069

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 431 250 3408; fax: +91 431 250 0133.
E-mail addresses: kalaipands@yahoo.com (M. Pandian), spshivam@nitt.edu
(S.P. Sivapirakasam), muday@nitt.edu (M. Udayakumar).
Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Energy
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ apener gy
scarce and offered a scope for this study. Win et al. [27] used the
Taguchi method of DoE for analyzing the role of operating and
injection system parameters on low noise, emissions and fuel con-
sumption (BSFC) and Ganapathy et al. [28] reported the perfor-
mance optimization of jatropha biodiesel engine model using
Taguchi approach. Anand and Karthikeyan [29] optimized the en-
gine parameters of a Spark Ignition engine with gaseous fuels with
the help of Taguchi methodology. Lee and Reitz [30] used Response
Surface Method (RSM) to optimize a high speed direct injection die-
sel engine equipped with a common rail injection system neglect-
ing the interactive effects of the parameters and Satake et al. [31]
performed the rapid development of diesel engines using RSM
based optimization of the fuel injection control. Win et al. [32] used
response surface methodology to optimize the parameter such as
load, speed and static injection timing of a diesel fueled CI engine
to reduce noise, fuel consumption and exhaust emissions.
The main objective of this work is to study the individual and
combined effects of injection system parameters on the perfor-
mance and emission characteristics of the diesel engine employing
pongamia biodieseldiesel blend as fuel using response surface
methodology based experimental design and the other objective
is to determine the optimal values of injection pressure, injection
timing and the nozzle tip protrusion which would be resulting in
improved performance with lesser NO
x
emissions without much
penalty on CO and HC emissions using the desirability approach
of numerical optimization.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Fuel preparation
Pongamia biodiesel was prepared through transesterication
process from pongamia oil which was extracted from the seeds
of pongamia tree. The formation of methyl esters by transesteri-
cation of vegetable oil requires raw oil, 15% of methanol and 5%
of sodium or potassium hydroxide on mass basis. However the
transesterication process requires excess alcohol to drive the
reaction very close to completion. A reaction time of 45 min to
an hour and reaction temperatures of 5565 C were required for
completion of reaction and formation of esters. The mixture was
stirred continuously and then allowed to settle under gravity in a
separating funnel. Two distinct layers found after gravity settling
for 24 h. The upper layer was of ester and the lower layer was of
glycerol. The lower layer was separated out and the separated ester
was mixed with some distilled water to remove the catalyst pres-
ent in ester and allowed to settle under gravity for another 24 h.
The catalyst not dissolved in water, which was separated and re-
moved the moisture. The biodiesel thus produced through the
above process was blended with diesel, procured from the nearby
commercial vendor, in a volume ratio of 40:60 to get the biodiesel
diesel blend fuel of B40. The B40 blend was chosen because of its
superior performance over other blend ratios [3336], which was
conrmed by the preliminary investigation conducted by the
authors. The fuel blend was prepared just before commencing
the experiments to ensure the mixture homogeneity. The proper-
ties of the fuel blend of B40 and diesel have been determined as
per the ASTM standards in an industrial testing and analytical lab-
oratory, established at Chennai, India. The uncertainty value of
each of the measured and estimated property is given in Table 1
along with the properties of fuels and its ASTM standards.
2.2. Equipment and materials
The experiments were conducted on the twin cylinder water
cooled naturally aspirated direct injection compression ignition
engine whose specications are also prescribed in Table 1. The en-
gine is coupled with an alternator manufactured by Kirloskar,
which in turn was loaded by the three water heaters each of
2.5 kW capacity. The measurements of various parameters were
made only after the engine attained steady state. In each experi-
ment, the time for consumption of 40 cc of fuel, load, current and
voltage, the temperatures at salient points and air ow rate were
noted. The smoke opacity of the exhaust gas was measured by
smoke opacimeter (Make: AVL Austria; Model: 437). Exhaust gas
composition was measured using NDIR based exhaust gas analyzer
(Make: AVL Austria; Model: 444 DiGas). This analyzer measures
CO
2
, CO, HC, NO
x
and O
2
in the exhaust gas. The measurement
range and accuracy of the exhaust gas analyzer are given in Table 2.
Fig. 1 shows the schematic layout of the experimental setup.
The static injection timing was altered by adjusting the number
of shims under the seat of a mounting ange of the fuel pump.
When the shims were added, timing was retarded, and vice versa
[27]. Procedure of measurement of static injection timing is as fol-
lows: The tank is lled with the fuel in such a way that the level of
fuel in the tank is about 10 cmabove the testing device. The TDC po-
sition is marked on the ywheel by bringing the piston to the top
most position of the cylinder. Then the ywheel is turned in anti-
clockwise direction till the fuel reaches the testing device. This
operation is repeated to note down exactly the moment at which
the fuel moves through the testing device hole by slowly rotating
the ywheel and stopped immediately. Then the ywheel is
brought back by 5 mm. This position is marked on the ywheel
and that position is called as static injection timing. Thus the static
injection timing of the engine can be checked with the manufac-
turers set value. Similar procedure is adopted to measure the static
injection timing when the shims are added or removed to vary the
timings in comparison with the original injection timing. The
curvilinear distances on the ywheel are measured by using thread.
Then the injection timing angle was calculated in relation with the
original injection timing angle. The accuracy of measurement will
be 1.
The fuel injection pressure was varied by inserting or removing
shims under nozzle spring [27]. The fuel pressure was measured
using the BOSCH standard nozzle tester which had a pressure
gauge to measure the pressure in the range of 0400 bar. The each
division in the gauge measures 2 bar, which is also the accuracy of
the gauge. The usage of copper sealing washers of different thick-
ness altered the nozzle tip protrusion [27]. From the engine sup-
pliers manual, the original nozzle tip protrusion is found to be
2.5 mm. Then the copper shims of different thicknesses are kept
beneath the fuel injector mountings. Later the nozzle tip protru-
sion was improved by the removal of shims of different thickness
in such a way that the protrusion be 4 mm. Similarly addition of
shims was made so that the protrusion can be 1 mm into the com-
bustion chamber. The thickness of the shim was measured using
the digital vernier caliper and the accuracy of vernier caliper is
0.01 mm. The experiments were carried out for 80% of load at a
speed of 1500 rpm as that load was found to be economical for
the specied test engine.
2.3. Response surface methodology
Response Surface methodology was employed in the present
study for modeling and analysis of response parameters in order
to obtain the characteristics of the engine. The design and analysis
of experiment involved the following steps:
The rst step was the selection of the parameters that inuence
the performance and emission characteristics. In this study, the
injection timing, injection pressure and the nozzle tip protru-
sion were considered as the input parameters.
2664 M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676
Table 1
Specication of engine and fuel.
A: Engine specication
Parameters Details
Make M/s. Rocket Engineering Corporation, Kohlapur, Maharashtra, India
Bore 80 mm
Stroke 110 mm
Compression ratio 17.5
Rated power 7.5 kW
Rated speed 1500 rpm
Injection timing 24 BTDC
Injection pressure 200 bar
Nozzle tip protrusion 2.5 mm
Dynamometer Alternator with water heaters
B: Specication of fuel
Property Diesel Pongamia biodiesel Fuel blend B40 Uncertainty ASTM methods
Kinematic Viscosity @40 C (mm
2
/s) 2.6 4.8 3.85 0.2 ASTM D445
Cetane Number 50 51 51 ASTM D613
Iodine Value NA 112 41 ASTM D 195997
Caloric Value (MJ/kg) 42.5 36.5 40.1 0.15 ASTM D 240
Specic Gravity @15 C 0.835 0.878 0.859 1.5% ASTM D 941
Flash Point (C) 68 172 81 0.1 ASTM D93
Table 2
Exhaust gas analyzer specication.
Exhaust gas Measurement range Resolution Accuracy
CO 010 vol.% 0.01 vol.% <.06 vol.%:0.03 vol.%
P0.6 vol.%:5% of ind. val.
HC 020,000 ppm 62000 ppm:1 ppm vol. > 2000 ppm:10 ppm <200 ppm vol.:10 ppm vol.
P200 ppm vol.:5% of ind. val.
CO
2
020 vol.% 0.1 vol.% <10 vol.%:0.5 vol.%
P10 vol.%:5% of val. M.
O
2
022 vol.% 0.01 vol.% <2 vol.%:0.1 vol.%
P2 vol.%:5% of val. M.
NO 05000 ppm 1 ppm vol. <500 ppm vol.:50 ppm vol.
P500 ppm vol.:10% of ind. val.
Fig. 1. Schematic layout of the experimental setup.
M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676 2665
The injection timing (denoted by t) was varied at ve levels in
steps of 3 from 18 BTDC to 30 BTDC. The injection pressure
(denoted by p
r
) too was varied at ve levels from 150 bar to
250 bar in steps of 25 bar. The Nozzle tip protrusion (denoted
by l) was varied at three levels from 1 mm to 4 mm with the
interval of 1.5 mm. The ranges of the input parameters were
selected based on the permissible limits within which the mod-
ications can be made with the existing engine.
The advantage of using Design of Experiments is to evaluate the
performance of the engine over the entire range of variation of
injection system parameters with minimum number of experi-
ments. The design matrix was selected based on the fractional
factorial design of response surface methodology generated
from the software Design expert version 7.1.5 of Stat ease,
US, which contained 50 experimental runs as shown in Table 3.
As per the run order, the experiments were conducted on the
engine and the responses were fed on the responses column.
A multiple regression analysis was carried out to obtain the
coefcients and the equations can be used to predict the
responses. Using the statistically signicant model, the correla-
tion between the process parameters and the several responses
were obtained.
Finally, the optimal values of the injection system parameters
were obtained by using the desirability approach of the
response surface methodology.
2.4. Desirability approach
The real-life problems require optimization with the multiple
responses of interest. Techniques like overlaying the contour plots
for each response, constrained optimization problems and desir-
ability approach are being used. Among them, desirability
approach is found to have benets like simplicity, availability in
the software and exibility in weighting and giving importance
for individual response. In the present work, response surface
methodology based desirability approach is used for the optimiza-
tion of injection system parameters (i.e. injection timing, injection
pressure and nozzle tip protrusion) for the measured properties of
Table 3
Experimental design matrix.
Std Run t ( BTDC) p
r
(bar) l (mm) BSEC (MJ/kW h) BTE (%) CO (vol.%) HC (ppm) Smoke (%) NO
x
(ppm)
1 1 21 175 4 15.8112 23.13 0.62 80 80 177
2 2 27 225 4 14.5043 24.57 0.3 61 63 316
3 3 21 250 1 15.1173 23.34 0.61 71 71 199
4 4 24 225 2.5 13.796 26.165 0.39 58 62 294
5 5 18 175 4 16.0628 22.53 0.75 90 85 140
6 6 21 250 2.5 14.2768 24.98 0.5 61 71 190
7 7 27 150 4 15.2534 23.49 0.55 76 80 260
8 8 18 150 2.5 15.6905 22.94 0.77 90 82 142
9 9 24 250 4 14.9376 24.06 0.48 66 70 248
10 10 27 150 1 15.1684 23.64 0.63 78 78 262
11 11 18 175 1 16.1393 22.99 0.85 83 86 144
12 12 30 250 1 14.5355 24.64 0.29 58 60 350
13 13 30 175 2.5 13.8792 25.94 0.37 67 64 369
14 14 24 250 1 14.9152 23.61 0.53 66 68 263
15 15 27 225 2.5 13.66 26.59 0.27 56 60 332
16 16 21 225 2.5 13.9174 25.74 0.45 61 65 225
17 17 27 175 2.5 14.3089 25.62 0.43 69 67 295
18 18 27 250 1 14.7057 23.99 0.41 61 63 305
19 19 21 225 4 14.8394 24.34 0.47 68 67 201
20 20 27 250 4 14.722 24.47 0.37 63 65 300
21 21 30 200 4 14.4996 24.95 0.28 61 64 383
22 22 21 250 4 15.0671 23.59 0.51 70 72 194
23 23 24 225 4 14.6802 24.34 0.41 64 65 259
24 24 30 200 2.5 13.6577 26.47 0.33 62 62 401
25 25 18 200 2.5 14.57 24.71 0.54 69 72 157
26 26 18 225 1 15.0099 23.49 0.65 71 73 161
27 27 18 150 1 16.4642 22.33 0.98 92 90 139
28 28 30 225 1 14.2839 25.06 0.23 52 59 378
29 29 24 150 1 15.5164 23.38 0.69 84 81 233
30 30 27 200 4 14.9292 24.41 0.41 68 66 302
31 31 30 225 4 14.2829 25.11 0.23 54 61 420
32 32 21 150 1 15.9259 22.89 0.75 88 85 186
33 33 21 175 2.5 14.6132 24.91 0.7 75 73 180
34 34 24 200 2.5 14.0381 25.87 0.44 65 65 268
35 35 21 200 2.5 14.2113 25.33 0.48 67 69 195
36 36 27 200 2.5 13.7907 26.27 0.4 63 64 308
37 37 18 175 2.5 14.875 24.24 0.72 79 76 147
38 38 18 225 2.5 14.4144 24.98 0.49 65 70 175
39 39 18 150 4 16.6427 21.82 0.89 98 92 130
40 40 30 250 1 14.5355 24.63 0.29 58 60 350
41 41 21 150 2.5 14.7854 23.82 0.74 87 79 170
42 42 30 150 1 14.8661 24.29 0.58 74 74 316
43 43 30 150 4 14.9511 23.8 0.5 69 77 308
44 44 18 200 4 15.5973 23.25 0.7 81 78 151
45 45 24 150 2.5 14.6055 24.42 0.67 83 77 246
46 46 24 175 1 15.4426 23.49 0.57 75 74 245
47 47 18 200 1 15.5293 23.14 0.76 76 78 154
48 48 30 200 4 14.4996 24.95 0.28 61 64 383
49 49 18 250 1 15.2453 23.19 0.68 74 76 157
50 50 24 175 2.5 14.4524 25.11 0.54 71 71 254
2666 M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676
responses (BSEC, BTE, CO, HC, smoke opacity and NO
x
). The optimi-
zation analysis is carried out using Design Expert software, where
each response is transformed to a dimensionless desirability value
(d) and it ranges between d = 0, which suggests that the response is
completely unacceptable, and d = 1, which suggests that the re-
sponse is more desirable. The goal of each response can be either
maximize, minimize, target, in the range and/or equal to depend-
ing on the nature of the problem. The desirability of the each re-
sponse can be calculated by the following equations with respect
to the goal of each response.
For a goal of minimum, d
i
= 1 when Y
i
6 Low
i
; d
i
= 0 when
Y
i
PHigh
i
; and
d
i

High
i
Y
i
High
i
Low
i

wt
i
when Low
i
< Y
i
< High
i
For a goal of maximum, d
i
= 0 when Y
i
6 Low
i
; d
i
= 1 when
Y
i
PHigh
i
and
d
i

Y
i
Low
i
High
i
Low
i

wt
i
when Low
i
< Y
i
< High
i
For goal as target, d
i
= 0, when Y
i
< Low
i
; Y
i
> High
i
d
i

Y
i
Low
i
T
i
Low
i

wt
1i
when Low
i
< Y
i
< T
i
d
i

Y
i
High
i
T
i
High
i

wt
2i
when T
i
< Y
i
< High
i
; and
For the goal within the range, d
i
= 1 when Low
i
< Y
i
< High
i
and
d
i
= 0; otherwise.
Here i indicates the response, Y the value of response, Low
represents the lower limit of the response, High represents the
upper limit of the response, T means the target value of the re-
sponse, wt indicates the weight of the response. The shape of
the desirability function can be changed for each response by the
weight eld. Weights are used to give more emphasis to the low-
er/upper bounds. Weights can be ranged from 0.1 to 10; a weight
greater than 1 gives more emphasis to the goal, weights less than
1 give less emphasis. When the weight value is equal to one, the
desirability function varies in a linear mode. Solving of multiple re-
sponse optimizations using the desirability approach involves a
technique of combining multiple responses into a dimensionless
measure of performance called the overall desirability function, D
(0 6 D 6 1), is calculated by
D P
n
i1
d
r
i
i

1=Rr
i
In the overall desirability objective function (D), each response
can be assigned an importance (r), relative to the other responses.
Importance varies from the least important value of 1, indicated by
(+), the most important value of 5, indicated by (+++++). A high va-
lue of D indicates the more desirable and best functions of the sys-
tem which is considered as the optimal solution. The optimum
values of factors are determined from value of individual desired
functions (d) that maximizes D.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Analysis of the model
The principal model analysis was based on the analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA) which provides numerical information for the p
value. The ANOVA for different response parameters such as BSEC,
BTE, CO, HC, smoke opacity and NO
x
emissions were given in
Table 4. The models found to be signicant as the values of p were
less than 0.05. The quadratic models for the responses were devel-
oped in terms of actual factors and are given below as Eqs. (1)(6).
BSEC 28:45 0:24 t 0:07 p
r
2:08 l 7:53 10
4
t p
r
1:09 p
2
r
0:42 l
2
1
BTE 2:93 0:26 t 0:13 p
r
2:80 l 5:56 10
4
t p
r
2:69 10
3
p
r
l 2:93 10
4
p
2
r
0:67 l
2
2
CO 3:28 0:3 t 0:02 p
r
0:16 l 3:50 10
5
p
2
r
0:03 l
2
3
HC 275:78 2:70 t 1:32 p
r
8:78 l 6:52 10
3
t p
r
2:41 10
3
p
2
r
1:83 l
2
4
Smoke opacity 215:96 1:18 t 0:95 p
r
10:18 l
2:02 10
3
p
2
r
2:09 l
2
5
NO
x
412:48 8:56 t 3:39 p
r
4:74 l 0:03 t
p
r
0:97 t l 9:73 10
3
p
2
r
3:91 l
2
6
3.2. Evaluation of the model
The stability of the models was validated using Analysis of Var-
iance (ANAVO) presented in Table 4 for the various responses. The
output showed that the model was signicant with p values less
than 0.0001. The reference limit for p was chosen as 0.05. The
regression statistics goodness of t (R
2
) and the goodness of predic-
tion (Adjusted R
2
) were shown in Table 5 for all the responses. The
R
2
value indicates the total variability of response after considering
the signicant factors. The Adjusted R
2
value accounts for the num-
ber of predictors in the model. Both the values indicate that the
model ts the data very well [37].
3.3. Interactive effect of injection timing and injection pressure
The interactive effect of injection timing and injection pressure
on BSEC, BTE, CO, HC, NO
x
and smoke opacity are depicted in
Figs. 27 respectively. During advancement of injection timing
from 18 BTDC to 30 BTDC, the BSEC and the exhaust emissions
like CO, HC and smoke opacity were reduced and BTE and NO
x
emission increased. This could be due to the following fact: in-cyl-
inder charge temperature and pressure decreased with an
advancement of the injection timing resulting in extended ignition
Table 4
ANOVA for various responses indicating the values of p.
Source BSEC BTE CO HC Smoke
opacity
NO
x
Model <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
t <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
p <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
l 0.4938 0.2914 0.0012 0.2783 0.2116 0.5789
t p <0.0001 0.0069
*
0.0198
*
0.0124
p l
*
0.0001
*

*
t l
*

*
0.0114
p
2
<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
l
2
<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0496
*
The insignicance of the input parameter over the output responses as the value
of p was greater than 0.05.
M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676 2667
delay of the injected fuel. Simultaneously, the penetration of fuel
spray enhanced, reaction between fuel and air improved and ulti-
mately resulted in premixed or rapid combustion phase of the
combustion process.
Increasing the injection pressure from 150 bar to 225 bar
increased BTE and NO
x
with reduction in BSEC, CO, HC and smoke
opacity. Increasing the injection pressure beyond 225 bar, the in-
verse trend was noticed at all injection timings. The above result
could be due to the following fact: With increase in injection pres-
sure, better atomization of the fuel resulted in the smaller droplet
size; faster evaporation of fuel sprays; and improved reaction be-
tween fuel and air. These resulted in comparatively better combus-
tion and contributed for higher BTE and NO
x
emission with lesser
BSEC, CO, HC and smoke emissions at all injection timings. Beyond
225 bar of injection pressure, faster velocity of the fuel jets caused
most fuel particles to hit the wall of combustion chamber where
Table 5
Response surface model evaluation.
Model BSEC BTE CO HC Smoke opacity NO
x
Mean 14.84 24.30 0.53 70.78 71.48 247.24
Std. Deviation 0.15 0.21 0.044 2.84 1.79 13.67
Model degree Quadratic Quadratic Quadratic Quadratic Quadratic Quadratic
R
2
0.9590 0.9709 0.9480 0.9392 0.9591 0.9763
Adj. R
2
0.9533 0.9661 0.9421 0.9307 0.9545 0.9723
Pred. R
2
0.9454 0.9594 0.9333 0.9147 0.9461 0.9659
Fig. 2. BSEC variations against injection pressure and injection timing.
Fig. 3. BTE variations against injection pressure and injection timing.
2668 M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676
Fig. 4. CO variations against injection pressure and injection timing.
Fig. 6. NO
x
variations against injection pressure and injection timing.
Fig. 5. HC variations against injection pressure and injection timing.
M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676 2669
the fuel particles got cooled and not participated in the combustion
process effectively which would result in incomplete combustion.
The above discussions revealed that an injection pressure of
225 bar combined with advanced injection timing 30 BTDC pro-
duced highest BTE with maximum NO
x
emissions and lesser emis-
sions of CO, HC and smoke emissions while the low injection
pressure (150 bar) combined with the retarded injection timing
(18 BTDC) resulted in the opposite trend to that of previous one.
ANOVA for various responses shown in Table 4 indicated the
signicance of the interactions between injection timing and injec-
tion pressure on the response parameters such as BSEC, BTE, HC
and NO
x
emissions as the values of p were being less than 0.05.
3.4. Interactive effect of injection pressure and nozzle tip protrusion
The interactive effect of nozzle tip protrusion and the injection
pressure on BSEC, BTE, CO, HC, NO
x
and smoke opacity are shown
in Figs. 813 respectively. As the injection pressure increased from
150 bar to 225 bar, there was a reduction in BSEC, CO and HC emis-
sions and smoke opacity with increase in BTE and NO
x
emission.
But beyond 225 bar of fuel injection pressure, an opposite trend
prevailed in all the response parameters. Further, lesser BSEC, low-
er CO and HC emissions and smoke opacity were seen and higher
value of BTE and maximum NO
x
noticed at 2.5 mm of nozzle tip
penetration and at all injection pressures. Irrespective of the fuel
injection pressure at other nozzle tip protrusions like 1 mm and
4 mm, the BSEC, CO, HC and smoke opacity values were higher
with low values of BTE and NO
x
emission.
With reference to the effect of injection pressure, the facts dis-
cussed in the paragraph 2 of Section 3.3 could be attributed for the
above stated results.
As far as nozzle tip protrusion is concerned, the shorter protru-
sion (1 mm) caused under penetration of the fuel spray and the
longer protrusion (4 mm) caused over penetration of the fuel spray.
Fig. 7. Smoke opacity variations against injection pressure and injection timing.
Fig. 8. BSEC variations against nozzle tip protrusion and injection pressure.
2670 M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676
These under and over penetration of the fuel spray caused non-
uniform mixing, lesser air utilization and led to incomplete com-
bustion. Hence there was higher BSEC, CO, HC emissions and smoke
opacity with lesser BTE and lower NO
x
emission. But at 2.5 mm of
nozzle tip protrusion, there might be an uniform mixing of the
spray with the air; faster evaporation of the spray and smooth reac-
tions between the fuel spray and air which produced higher BTE
and NO
x
emissions with lower BSEC, CO, HC emissions and smoke
opacity at all injection pressures. Figs. 813 showed that improved
performance (lower BSEC and higher BTE) with lower exhaust
emissions (CO, HC and smoke opacity) could be had at an injection
pressure of 225 bar and at the nozzle tip protrusion of 2.5 mm.
Although the nozzle tip protrusion and the injection pressure
had strong inuence on the performance and emission characteris-
tics individually, their interactive effects were insignicant except
for BTE, as seen in the ANOVA Table 4, because the values of p were
greater than the reference value 0.05 for all the response parame-
ters except BTE.
3.5. Interactive effect of injection timing and nozzle tip protrusion
Figs. 1419 showed the interactive effect of injection timing
and nozzle tip penetration over BSEC, BTE, CO, HC, NO
x
and smoke
opacity. Figs. 1419 revealed that the BSEC, CO, HC and smoke
opacity were decreased while the BTE and NO
x
were increased
on the advancement of injection timing from 18 BTDC to 30 BTDC
at all nozzle tip protrusions. Also the lower BSEC, CO, HC and
smoke opacity with higher BTE and NO
x
were seen at 2.5 mm of
nozzle protrusion at all injection timings; while high values of
BSEC, CO, HC and smoke opacity with low values of BTE and NO
x
observed at other nozzle tip protrusions (1 mm and 4 mm) with
all the injection timings.
The contributors for the above results had been discussed elab-
orately in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. Table 4 showing the values of AN-
OVA for various responses revealed that both the injection timing
and nozzle tip protrusion had signicant effects on the various re-
sponses but their combined effects were insignicant over all the
Fig. 9. BTE variations against nozzle tip protrusion and injection pressure.
Fig. 10. CO variations against nozzle tip protrusion and injection pressure.
M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676 2671
responses except NO
x
emission since their values of p were greater
than the reference value of 0.05 for most of the responses. Due to
insignicant interaction between the injection timing and nozzle
tip protrusion there was no change in the prole of the graphs
for all the response parameters.
3.6. Optimization
The detailed discussions on the inuence of injection system
parameters over performance and emission characteristics re-
vealed that the lowest injection pressure of 150 bar, retarded injec-
tion timing of 18 BTDC and either 1 mm or 4 mm of nozzle tip
protrusions resulted in very low values of BTE and NO
x
emission
with high values of BSEC, CO, HC and smoke opacity values. An
injection pressure of 225 bar with an advanced injection timing
of 30 BTDC and 2.5 mm of nozzle tip protrusion caused higher
BTE and NO
x
with lower BSEC, CO, HC and smoke opacity. As there
was a tradeoff between BTE and NO
x
and other emissions, it is
essential to optimize the injection systemparameters with the goal
of minimizing NO
x
emission and maximizing the BTE in such a way
that no much compromise may take place on the BSEC and other
emissions. The criteria for the optimization such as the goal set
for each response, lower and upper limits used, weights used and
importance of the factors are presented in Table 6. In desirability
based approach, different best solutions were obtained. The solu-
tion with high desirability is preferred. Maximum desirability of
0.98 was obtained at the following injection system parameters
like 21 BTDC of injection timing, 225 bar of injection pressure
and 2.5 mm of nozzle tip protrusion which could be considered
as the optimum parameters for the test engine having 7.5 kW as
rated power at 1500 rpm.
3.7. Validation of the optimized results
In order to validate the optimized results, the experiments were
performed thrice at the optimum injection system parameters. For
Fig. 12. NO
x
variations against nozzle tip protrusion and injection pressure.
Fig. 11. HC variations against nozzle tip protrusion and injection pressure.
2672 M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676
the actual responses, the average of three measured results was
calculated. Table 7 summarizes the average of experimental values,
the predicted values and the percentages of error. The validation
results indicated that the models developed were quite accurate
as the percentages of error in prediction were in a good agreement.
4. Conclusion
The following were the conclusions arrived on performing the
several tests in a twin cylinder diesel engine by varying the injec-
tion pressure, injection timing and nozzle tip protrusion at differ-
ent levels concurrently:
The Design of Experiments was highly helpful to design the
experiment and the statistical analysis helped to identify the
signicant parameters which are most inuencing on the per-
formance and emission characteristics. This experimental
design considerably reduced the time required by minimizing
the number of experiments to be performed and provided sta-
tistically proven models for all the responses.
Advancing the injection timing from 18 BTDC to 30 BTDC
helped to reduce the CO, HC and smoke emissions with increase
in NO
x
emission.
Increasing the injection pressure contributed for better BTE
with lesser BSEC at all injection timings with lower CO, HC
and smoke emissions and higher NO
x
. However when too high
was the injection pressure, the results were negated.
At moderate nozzle tipprotrusion, lesser BSEC withhighBTE was
noticed but shorter and/or longer protrusion led to poor BSEC,
BTE with higher CO and HC emissions. Also with moderate pro-
trusion and advanced injection timing, high injection pressure
yielded better performance than their individual contribution.
Fig. 14. BSEC variations against injection timing and nozzle tip protrusion.
Fig. 13. Smoke opacity variations against nozzle tip protrusion and injection pressure.
M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676 2673
Fig. 15. BTE variations against injection timing and nozzle tip protrusion.
Fig. 16. CO variations against injection timing and nozzle tip protrusion.
Fig. 17. HC variations against injection timing and nozzle tip protrusion.
2674 M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676
Fig. 19. Smoke opacity variations against injection timing and nozzle tip protrusion.
Table 6
Optimization criteria and the desirability of responses.
Parameter or response Limits Weights Importance Criterion Desirability
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Injection Timing ( BTDC) 18 30 1 1 5 In range 1
Injection Pressure (bar) 150 250 1 1 5 In range 1
Nozzle tip penetration (mm) 1 4 1 1 5 In range 1
BSEC (MJ/kW h) 13.66 16.64 1 0.1 5 Minimize 0.98
BTE (%) 21.82 26.59 0.1 1 5 Maximize 0.97
CO (vol.%) 0.23 0.98 1 0.1 5 Minimize 0.96
HC (ppm) 52 98 1 0.1 5 Minimize 0.97
Smoke opacity (%) 59 92 1 0.1 5 Minimize 0.97
NO
x
(ppm) 130 420 1 0.1 5 Minimize 0.96
Combined 0.98
Table 7
Validation test results.
Exp.
no
Injection timing
( BTDC)
Injection pressure
(bar)
Nozzle tip protrusion
(mm)
BSEC (MJ/
kW h)
BTE
(%)
CO
(vol.%)
HC
(ppm)
Smoke opacity
(%)
NO
x
(ppm)
Actual 14.20 25.21 0.49 65 67 221
01 21 225 2.5 Predicted 14.12 25.39 0.48 64 66.6 215
% Error 0.005 0.71 2.08 1.56 0.6 2.79
Fig. 18. NO
x
variations against injection timing and nozzle tip protrusion.
M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676 2675
Desirability approach of the response surface methodology was
found to be the simplest and efcient optimization technique. A
high desirability of 0.98 was obtained at the optimum injection
system parameters viz. 225 bar of injection pressure, 21 BTDC
of injection timing with 2.5 mm of nozzle protrusion, where
the values of the BSEC, BTE, CO, HC, smoke opacity and NO
x
emission were found to be 14.12 MJ/kW h, 25.39%, 0.48%,
64 ppm, 66.6% and 215 ppm respectively.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the Director, National Institute of
Technology, Tiruchirappalli, for extending the laboratory facilities
to carry out the research.
References
[1] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Rodriguez-Fernandez J. Effect of bio-diesel fuels on
diesel engine emissions. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2008;34:198223.
[2] Agarwal AK. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal
combustion engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2007;33:23371.
[3] Rao GLN, Sampath S, Rajagopal K. Experimental studies on the combustion and
emission characteristics of a diesel engine fuelled with used cooking oil methyl
ester and its diesel blends. Int J Appl Sci Eng Technol 2007;4(2):6470.
[4] Azam MM, Waris A, Nahar NM. Prospects and potential of fatty acid methyl
esters of some nontraditional seed oils for use as bio-diesel in India. Biomass
Bioenergy 2005;29:293302.
[5] Subramanian KA, Singal SK, Saxena M, Singhal S. Utilization of liquid biofuels
in automotive diesel engines: an Indian perspective. Biomass Bioenergy
2005;29:6572.
[6] Devan PK, Mahalakshmi NV. A study on the performance, emission and
combustion characteristics of a compression ignition engine using of methyl
ester of paradise oileucalyptus oil blends. Appl Energy 2009;86:67580.
[7] Alla GHA, Soliman HA, Badr OA, Abd Rabbo MF. Effect of injection timing on the
performance of a dual fuel engine. Energy Convers Manage 2002;43:26977.
[8] Bari S, Yu CW, Lim TH. Effect of fuel injection timing with waste cooking oil as a
fuel in a direction injection diesel engine. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part D: J
Automob Eng 2004;218:93104.
[9] Buyukkakaya E, Cerit M. Experimental study of NO
x
emissions and injection
timing of a low heat rejection diesel engine. Int J Therm Sci 2008;47:1096106.
[10] Ma Z, Huang Z, Li C, Wang X, Miao H. Effects of fuel injection timing on
combustion and emission characteristics of a diesel engine fuelled with
dieselpropane blends. Energy Fuels 2007;21(3):150410.
[11] Mani M, Nagarajan G. Inuence of Injection timing on performance, emission
and combustion characteristics of a DI diesel engine running on waste plastic
oil. Energy 2009;34(10):161723.
[12] Nwafor OMI, Rice G, Ogbonna AI. Effect of advanced injection timing on the
performance of rapeseed oil in diesel engines. Renewable Energy 2000;21:
43344.
[13] Pandian M, Sivapirakasam SP, Udayakumar M. Inuence of injection timing on
performance and emission characteristics of naturally aspirated twin cylinder
CIDI engine using bio-diesel blend as fuel. Int J Recent Trends Eng
2009;1(5):1137.
[14] Sayin C, Uslu CanakciM. Inuence of injection timing on the exhaust emissions
of a dual fuel CI engine. Renewable Energy 2008;33(6):131423.
[15] Sayin C, Canakci M. Effects of injection timing on the engine performance and
exhaust emissions of a dual fuel diesel engine. Energy Convers Manage
2009;50(1):20313.
[16] Bakar RA, Semin IsmailAR. Fuel injection pressure effect on performance of
direct injection diesel engine based on experiment. Am J Appl Sci
2008;5(3):197202.
[17] Benajes J, Molina S, Garcia JM, Novilla R. Inuence of boost pressure and
injection pressure on combustion process and exhaust emissions in a HD
diesel engine. SAE International 2004-01-1842; 2004. p. 83445.
[18] Icingur Y, Altiparmak D. Effect of fuel cetane number and injection pressure on
a DI diesel engine performance and emissions. Energy Convers Manage
2003;44:38997.
[19] Puhan SJR, Balasubramanian K, Nagarajan G. Effect of injection pressure on
performance, emission and combustion characteristics of high linolenic
linseed oil methyl ester in a DI diesel engine. Renewable Energy 2009;34(5):
122733.
[20] Rente T, Gjirja S, Denbratt I. Experimental investigation of the effect of needle
opening pressure (NOP) on combustion and emissions formation in a heavy
duty DI diesel engine/ SAE International 2004-01-2921; 2004. p. 1692711.
[21] Venkanna BK, Wadawadagi SB, Reddy CV. Effect of injection pressure on
performance, emission and combustion characteristics of direct injection
diesel engine running on blends of pongamia pinnatta Linn oil (honge oil) and
diesel fuel. Agricultural Engineering International: The CIGR E-Journal; 2009.
p. 11. Manuscript No. 1316.
[22] Roy MM. Effect of fuel injection timing and injection pressure on combustion
and odorous emissions in DI diesel engines. ASME J Energy Resources Technol
2009;131:032201-18.
[23] Lyu MS, Shin BS. Study of nozzle characteristics on the performance of a small
bore high speed direct injection diesel engine. Int J Engine Res
2002;3(2):6979.
[24] Karra PK, Kong SC. Experimental study on effects of nozzle hole geometry on
achieving low diesel engine emissions. ASME J Eng Gas Turbines Power
2010;132:022802-110.
[25] Reddy JN, Ramesh A. Parametric studies for improving the performance of a
Jatropha oil-fuelled compression ignition engine. Renewable Energy
2006;31:19942016.
[26] Heywood JB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. New York: McGraw
Hill; 1988.
[27] Win Z, Gakkar RP, Jain SC, Bhattacharya M. Investigation of diesel engine
operating and injection system parameters for low noise, emissions, and fuel
consumption using Taguchi methods. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part D: J Automob
Eng 2005;219:123751.
[28] Ganapathy T, Murugesan K, Gakkar RP. Performance optimization of Jatropha
biodiesel engine model using Taguchi approach. Appl Energy 2009;86:
247686.
[29] Anand G, Karthikeyan B. An investigation and engine parameters optimization
of a spark ignition engine with gaseous fuels. In: 4th Dessau gas engine
conference, WTZ RoBlau gGmbH, Germany, June 23, 2005.
[30] Lee T, Reitz RD. Response surface method optimization of a high speed direct
injection diesel engine equipped with a common rail injection system. ASME J
Eng Gas Turbines Power 2003;125:5416.
[31] Satake K, Monaka T, Yamada S, Endo H, Yamagisawa M, Abe T. The rapid
development of diesel engine using an optimization of the fuel injection
control, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Limited. Tech Rev 2008;45:610.
[32] Win Z, Gakkar RP, Jain SC, Bhattacharya M. Parameter optimization of a diesel
engine to reduce noise, fuel consumption, and exhaust emissions using
response surface methodology. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part D: J Automob Eng
2005;219:118192.
[33] Srivastava PK, Verma M. Methyl ester of karanja oil as alternative renewable
source energy. Fuel 2008;87:16737.
[34] Agarwal AK, Rajamanoharan K. Experimental Investigations of performance
and emissions of karanja oil and its blends in a single cylinder agricultural
diesel engine. Appl Energy 2009;86:10612.
[35] Raheman H, Phadatare AG. Diesel Engine emissions and performance from
blends of karanja methyl ester and diesel. Biomass Bioenergy 2004;27:3937.
[36] Sureshkumar K, Velraj R, Ganesan R. Performance and Emission characteristics
of a CI engine fuelled with Pongamia pinnata methyl ester and its blends with
diesel. Renewable Energy 2008;33:2294302.
[37] Lundstedt Torbjorn, Seifert E, Abramo L, Thelin B, Nystrom A, Pettersen J, et al.
Experimental design and optimization. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 1998;42:340.
2676 M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 26632676