Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Applied Energy journal homepage: www.elsevi er.com/locat e/apenergy 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 biodiesel–diesel 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 article info 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 abstract 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 transesterification 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 Specific Energy Consumption (BSEC), Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE), Carbon monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbon (HC), smoke opacity and Nitrogen Oxides (NO ) and further to identify the significant 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 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 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 emission [1–6] . Among the various parameters of interest, which have the potential of influencing the performance and NO emission, the injection system parameters are fundamental and modification 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 [7–25] , it is found that the reduction in NO emission as well as improvement in engine performance and combustion characteristics can be had by suitably optimizing the ⇑ 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). 0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.01.069 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 influenced by the combined effect of various parameters like air–fuel 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 " id="pdf-obj-0-5" src="pdf-obj-0-5.jpg">

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevi er.com/locat e/apenergy

Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Applied Energy journal homepage: www.elsevi er.com/locat e/apenergy 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 biodiesel–diesel 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 article info 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 abstract 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 transesterification 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 Specific Energy Consumption (BSEC), Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE), Carbon monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbon (HC), smoke opacity and Nitrogen Oxides (NO ) and further to identify the significant 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 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 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 emission [1–6] . Among the various parameters of interest, which have the potential of influencing the performance and NO emission, the injection system parameters are fundamental and modification 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 [7–25] , it is found that the reduction in NO emission as well as improvement in engine performance and combustion characteristics can be had by suitably optimizing the ⇑ 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). 0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.01.069 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 influenced by the combined effect of various parameters like air–fuel 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 " id="pdf-obj-0-16" src="pdf-obj-0-16.jpg">

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 biodiesel–diesel 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

article info

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

abstract

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 transesterification 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 Specific Energy Consumption (BSEC), Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE), Carbon monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbon (HC), smoke opacity and Nitrogen Oxides (NO _x ) and further to identify the significant 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 [1–6]. Among the various parameters of interest, which have the potential of influencing the performance and NO _x emission, the injection system parameters are fundamental and modification 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 [7–25], 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

⇑ 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).

0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.01.069

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 influenced by the combined effect of various parameters like air–fuel 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

2664

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

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 biodiesel–diesel 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 transesterification process from pongamia oil which was extracted from the seeds of pongamia tree. The formation of methyl esters by transesterifi- cation of vegetable oil requires raw oil, 15% of methanol and 5% of sodium or potassium hydroxide on mass basis. However the transesterification 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 55–65 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 [33–36], which was confirmed 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.

engine whose specifications 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 flow 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 flange 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 filled with the fuel in such a way that the level of fuel in the tank is about 10 cm above the testing device. The TDC po- sition is marked on the flywheel by bringing the piston to the top most position of the cylinder. Then the flywheel 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 flywheel and stopped immediately. Then the flywheel is brought back by 5 mm. This position is marked on the flywheel and that position is called as static injection timing. Thus the static injection timing of the engine can be checked with the manufac- turer’s 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 flywheel 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 0–400 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- plier’s 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 specified 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:

• 2.2. Equipment and materials

The experiments were conducted on the twin cylinder water cooled naturally aspirated direct injection compression ignition

The first step was the selection of the parameters that influence 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.

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

Table 1

Specification of engine and fuel.

2665

A: Engine specification 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 Dynamometer					2.5 mm Alternator with water heaters
B: Specification of fuel Property			Diesel	Pongamia biodiesel	Fuel blend B40	Uncertainty	ASTM methods
Kinematic Viscosity @40 C (mm 2 /s)			2.6 50 NA 42.5 0.835 68	4.8	3.85	±0.2	ASTM D445
Cetane Number				51	51	–	ASTM D613
Iodine Value				112	41	–	ASTM D 1959–97
Calorific Value (MJ/kg)				36.5	40.1	±0.15	ASTM D 240
Specific Gravity @15 C				0.878	0.859	±1.5%	ASTM D 941
Flash Point ( C)				172	81	±0.1	ASTM D93
		Table 2
		Exhaust gas analyzer specification.
		Exhaust gas	Measurement range	Resolution		Accuracy
		CO	0–10 vol.%	0.01 vol.%		<.06 vol.%:±0.03 vol.%
		HC	0–20,000 ppm	62000 ppm:1 ppm vol. > 2000 ppm:10 ppm		P0.6 vol.%:±5% of ind. val. <200 ppm vol.:±10 ppm vol. P200 ppm vol.:±5% of ind. val.
		CO 2	0–20 vol.%	0.1 vol.%		<10 vol.%:±0.5 vol.% P10 vol.%:±5% of val. M.
		O 2	0–22 vol.%	0.01 vol.%		<2 vol.%:±0.1 vol.% P2 vol.%:±5% of val. M.
		NO	0–5000 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.

2666

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

The injection timing (denoted by ‘t’) was varied at five levels in steps of 3 from 18 BTDC to 30 BTDC. The injection pressure (denoted by ‘p _r ’) too was varied at five 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- ifications 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 coefficients and the equations can be used to predict the

responses. Using the statistically significant 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 benefits like simplicity, availability in the software and flexibility 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 4 1 21 175		15.8112	23.13	0.62	80	80	177
2 4 2 27 225		14.5043	24.57	0.3	61	63	316
3 1 3 21 250		15.1173	23.34	0.61	71	71	199
4 2.5 4 24 225		13.796	26.165	0.39	58	62	294
5 4 5 18 175		16.0628	22.53	0.75	90	85	140
6 2.5 6 21 250		14.2768	24.98	0.5	61	71	190
7 4 7 27 150		15.2534	23.49	0.55	76	80	260
8 2.5 8 18 150		15.6905	22.94	0.77	90	82	142
9 4 9 24 250		14.9376	24.06	0.48	66	70	248
10 1 10 27 150		15.1684	23.64	0.63	78	78	262
18 11 1 11 175		16.1393	22.99	0.85	83	86	144
30 12 1 12 250		14.5355	24.64	0.29	58	60	350
13 2.5 13 30 175		13.8792	25.94	0.37	67	64	369
14 1 14 24 250		14.9152	23.61	0.53	66	68	263
15 2.5 15 27 225		13.66	26.59	0.27	56	60	332
16 2.5 16 21 225		13.9174	25.74	0.45	61	65	225
17 2.5 17 27 175		14.3089	25.62	0.43	69	67	295
18 1 18 27 250		14.7057	23.99	0.41	61	63	305
19 4 19 21 225		14.8394	24.34	0.47	68	67	201
20 4 20 27 250		14.722	24.47	0.37	63	65	300
30 21 4 21 200		14.4996	24.95	0.28	61	64	383
22 4 22 21 250		15.0671	23.59	0.51	70	72	194
23 4 23 24 225		14.6802	24.34	0.41	64	65	259
30 24 2.5 24 200		13.6577	26.47	0.33	62	62	401
25 2.5 25 18 200		14.57	24.71	0.54	69	72	157
26 1 26 18 225		15.0099	23.49	0.65	71	73	161
27 1 27 18 150		16.4642	22.33	0.98	92	90	139
30 28 1 28 225		14.2839	25.06	0.23	52	59	378
29 1 29 24 150		15.5164	23.38	0.69	84	81	233
30 4 30 27 200		14.9292	24.41	0.41	68	66	302
31 4 31 30 225		14.2829	25.11	0.23	54	61	420
32 1 32 21 150		15.9259	22.89	0.75	88	85	186
33 2.5 33 21 175		14.6132	24.91	0.7	75	73	180
34 2.5 34 24 200		14.0381	25.87	0.44	65	65	268
35 2.5 35 21 200		14.2113	25.33	0.48	67	69	195
36 2.5 36 27 200		13.7907	26.27	0.4	63	64	308
37 2.5 37 18 175		14.875	24.24	0.72	79	76	147
38 2.5 38 18 225		14.4144	24.98	0.49	65	70	175
39 4 39 18 150		16.6427	21.82	0.89	98	92	130
30 40 1 40 250		14.5355	24.63	0.29	58	60	350
41 2.5 41 21 150		14.7854	23.82	0.74	87	79	170
30 42 1 42 150		14.8661	24.29	0.58	74	74	316
43 4 43 30 150		14.9511	23.8	0.5	69	77	308
44 4 44 18 200		15.5973	23.25	0.7	81	78	151
45 2.5 45 24 150		14.6055	24.42	0.67	83	77	246
46 1 46 24 175		15.4426	23.49	0.57	75	74	245
47 1 47 18 200		15.5293	23.14	0.76	76	78	154
30 48 4 48 200		14.4996	24.95	0.28	61	64	383
49 1 49 18 250		15.2453	23.19	0.68	74	76	157
50 2.5 50 24 175		14.4524	25.11	0.54	71	71	254

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

2667

responses (BSEC, BTE, CO, HC, smoke opacity and NO x ). The optimi-

Table 4 ANOVA for various responses indicating the values of ‘p’.

zation analysis is carried out using Design Expert software, where

each response is transformed to a dimensionless desirability value

Source BSEC

BTE

CO

HC

Smoke

NO x

(d) and it ranges between d = 0, which suggests that the response is

opacity

completely unacceptable, and d = 1, which suggests that the re-

Model

<0.0001

<0.0001

<0.0001 <0.0001

<0.0001

<0.0001

sponse is more desirable. The goal of each response can be either

t

<0.0001 <0.0001

<0.0001 <0.0001

<0.0001

<0.0001

maximize, minimize, target, in the range and/or equal to depend-

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

ing on the nature of the problem. The desirability of the each re-

t p

<0.0001

0.0069

–

*

0.0198 – *

0.0124

sponse can be calculated by the following equations with respect

p l

* –

0.0001

–

*

–

*

* –

–

*

to the goal of each response.

t l

– *

– *

– *

– *

– *

0.0114

For a goal of minimum, d i = 1 when Y i 6 Low i ; d i = 0 when

p 2

<0.0001

<0.0001

<0.0001 <0.0001

<0.0001

<0.0001

Y i P High i ; and

l 2

<0.0001

<0.0001

<0.0001 <0.0001

<0.0001

0.0496

d i ¼

High i Y i

wt i

when Low i < Y i < High i

* The insignificance of the input parameter over the output responses as the value of ‘p’ was greater than 0.05.

High i Low i

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

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).

d i ¼

Y i Low i

wt i

when Low i < Y i < High i

BSEC ¼ 28:45 0:24 t 0:07 p r 2:08 l þ 7:53 10 4

High i Low i

t p r þ 1:09 p 2 þ 0:42 l 2 r

ð1Þ

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

d i ¼

Y i Low i

wt 1i

when Low i < Y i < T i

BTE ¼ 2:93 þ 0:26 t þ 0:13 p r þ 2:80 l 5:56 10 4

T i Low i

t p r þ 2:69 10 3 p r l 2:93 10 4 p 2 r

0:67 l 2

ð2Þ

d i ¼

Y i High i

wt 2i

when T i < Y i < High i ; and

T i High i

CO

¼ 3:28 0:3 t 0:02 p r 0:16 l þ 3:50 10 5 p 2

r

For the goal within the range, d i = 1 when Low i < Y i < High i and

þ 0:03 l 2

ð3Þ

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

HC ¼ 275:78 2:70 t 1:32 p r 8:78 l þ 6:52 10 3

upper limit of the response, ‘‘T’’ means the target value of the re-

t p r þ 2:41 10 3 p 2 þ 1:83 l 2 r

ð4Þ

sponse, ‘‘wt’’ indicates the weight of the response. The shape of the desirability function can be changed for each response by the weight field. Weights are used to give more emphasis to the low-

Smoke opacity ¼ 215:96 1:18 t 0:95 p r 10:18 l

er/upper bounds. Weights can be ranged from 0.1 to 10; a weight

þ 2:02 10 3 p 2 þ 2:09 l 2 r

ð5Þ

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

NO x ¼ 412:48 þ 8:56 t þ 3:39 p r 4:74 l þ 0:03 t

desirability function varies in a linear mode. Solving of multiple re-

p r þ 0:97 t l 9:73 10 3 p 2 3:91 l 2 r

ð6Þ

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

3.2. Evaluation of the model

(0 6 D 6 1), is calculated

by

D ¼ P

n r i i¼1 ^d 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 significant as the values of p were

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 significant with p values less than 0.0001. The reference limit for p was chosen as 0.05. The regression statistics goodness of fit (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 significant factors. The Adjusted R ² value accounts for the num- ber of predictors in the model. Both the values indicate that the model fits 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. 2–7 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

2668

Table 5

Response surface model evaluation.

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

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.

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

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

Fig. 4. CO variations against injection pressure and injection timing.

2669

Fig. 5. HC variations against injection pressure and injection timing.

Fig. 6. NO _x variations against injection pressure and injection timing.

2670

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

Fig. 7. Smoke opacity variations against injection pressure and injection timing.

Fig. 8. BSEC variations against nozzle tip protrusion and injection pressure.

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 significance 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. 8–13 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.

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

2671

Fig. 9. BTE variations against nozzle tip protrusion and injection pressure.

Fig. 10. CO variations against nozzle tip protrusion and injection pressure.

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. 8–13 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 influence on the performance and emission characteris- tics individually, their interactive effects were insignificant 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. 14–19 showed the interactive effect of injection timing and nozzle tip penetration over BSEC, BTE, CO, HC, NO _x and smoke opacity. Figs. 14–19 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 significant effects on the various re- sponses but their combined effects were insignificant over all the

2672

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

Fig. 11. HC variations against nozzle tip protrusion and injection pressure.

Fig. 12. NO _x variations against nozzle tip protrusion and injection pressure.

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 insignificant interaction between the injection timing and nozzle tip protrusion there was no change in the profile of the graphs for all the response parameters.

3.6. Optimization

The detailed discussions on the influence 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 system parameters 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

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

2673

Fig. 13. Smoke opacity variations against nozzle tip protrusion and injection pressure.

Fig. 14. BSEC variations against injection timing and nozzle tip protrusion.

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 significant parameters which are most influencing 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 tip protrusion, lesser BSEC with high BTE 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.

2674

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

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.

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

2675

Fig. 18. NO _x variations against injection timing and nozzle tip protrusion.

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.	Injection timing	Injection pressure		Nozzle tip protrusion			BSEC (MJ/		BTE	CO	HC	Smoke opacity	NO x
no	( BTDC)	(bar)		(mm)			kW h)		(%)	(vol.%)	(ppm)	(%)	(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

2676

M. Pandian et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2663–2676

Desirability approach of the response surface methodology was found to be the simplest and efficient 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;34:198–223. [2] Agarwal AK. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal combustion engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2007;33:233–71. [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):64–70. [4] Azam MM, Waris A, Nahar NM. Prospects and potential of fatty acid methyl esters of some non–traditional seed oils for use as bio-diesel in India. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;29:293–302. [5] Subramanian KA, Singal SK, Saxena M, Singhal S. Utilization of liquid biofuels in automotive diesel engines: an Indian perspective. Biomass Bioenergy

2005;29:65–72.

[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 oil–eucalyptus oil blends. Appl Energy 2009;86:675–80. [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;43:269–77. [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;218:93–104. [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;47:1096–106. [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 diesel–propane blends. Energy Fuels 2007;21(3):1504–10. [11] Mani M, Nagarajan G. Influence of Injection timing on performance, emission and combustion characteristics of a DI diesel engine running on waste plastic oil’. Energy 2009;34(10):1617–23. [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:

433–44.

[13] Pandian M, Sivapirakasam SP, Udayakumar M. Influence 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):113–7.

[14] Sayin C, Uslu CanakciM. Influence of injection timing on the exhaust emissions of a dual fuel CI engine. Renewable Energy 2008;33(6):1314–23. [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):203–13.

[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):197–202.

[17] Benajes J, Molina S, Garcia JM, Novilla R. Influence of boost pressure and injection pressure on combustion process and exhaust emissions in a HD diesel engine. SAE International 2004-01-1842; 2004. p. 834–45. [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;44:389–97.

[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):

1227–33.

[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. 1692–711. [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;131:032201-1–8.

[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):69–79.

[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;132:022802-1–10.

[25] Reddy JN, Ramesh A. Parametric studies for improving the performance of a Jatropha oil-fuelled compression ignition engine. Renewable Energy

2006;31:1994–2016.

[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;219:1237–51. [28] Ganapathy T, Murugesan K, Gakkar RP. Performance optimization of Jatropha biodiesel engine model using Taguchi approach. Appl Energy 2009;86:

2476–86.

[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 2–3, 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;125:541–6. [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;45:6–10. [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;219:1181–92.

[33] Srivastava PK, Verma M. Methyl ester of karanja oil as alternative renewable source energy. Fuel 2008;87:1673–7. [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;86:106–12. [35] Raheman H, Phadatare AG. Diesel Engine emissions and performance from blends of karanja methyl ester and diesel. Biomass Bioenergy 2004;27:393–7. [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;33:2294–302. [37] Lundstedt Torbjorn, Seifert E, Abramo L, Thelin B, Nystrom A, Pettersen J, et al. Experimental design and optimization. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 1998;42:3–40.