International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
754
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF SINGLE CYLINDER DIESEL
ENGINE USING BLEND OF CHICKEN FAT BASED BIODIESEL
Jagadale S.S1., Jugulkar L.M.2
1 Research Scholar , RIT Sakharale 415414, Sangli, Maharashtra, India, Email ID- [email protected]
2 Asst. Prof., Dept. of Automobile Engg. , RIT Sakharale 415414, Sangli, Maharashtra, India, Email ID- [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This paper represents the Performance operating characteristics of single cylinder diesel engine using blend of chicken fat based Biodiesel at various loading conditions at constant speed. We compare the performance characteristics and smoke intensity of petroleum diesel with various blends of chicken fat based biodiesel with petroleum diesel.
KEY WORDS: Biodiesel, chicken fat based biodiesel, alternative fuel, diesel engine,
performance characteristics, blend.
INTRODUCTION
Performance test were conducted on stationary single cylinder diesel engine by using chicken fat based biodiesel blends with diesel fuel for no load to full load condition at constant speed. These tests were also conducted with conventional diesel fuel for comparison .Chicken fat based biodiesel is blended with petroleum diesel in proportion like 10%,15%,20%,25% and 30% these blends are termed as CFBD10,CFBD15,CFBD20,CFBD25 and CFBD30 Engine Performance ,Heat Balance sheet, using these blends and pure diesel have been evaluated and presented in following articles. All the Performance tests were conducted in the Automotive Power Plant lab, at Rajarambapu Institute of Technology, Sakharale, Islampur, Taluka-walwa and District-Sangli.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP The Performance test are conducted on a computerized single cylinder, four stroke, direct injection, water cooled diesel engine test rig. An engine indicator is fitted in control panel which
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY (IJMET)
ISSN 0976 – 6340 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6359 (Online)
Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), pp. 754-768
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijmet.html
Journal Impact Factor (2012): 3.8071 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJMET
© I A E M E
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
755
senses pressure and crank angle data interfaces with computer .Digital display of speed in RPM is indicated on engine indicator .The engine indicator is connected to COM port of computer .The engine and dynamometer were interfaced to a control panel ,which is connected to a computer .Performance analysis software Engine soft version 2.4,supplied by test rig supplier “Apex Innovations Pvt. Ltd.” was used for recording the test parameters such as fuel flow rate, air flow rate, temperatures, load etc and for evaluating the performance characteristics such as brake thermal efficiency, brake specific fuel consumption, mechanical efficiency ,volumetric efficiency etc. The calorific value and density of the particular fuel was fed to the software for calculating the above said parameters.
Experimental Test setup
Photograph 1: single cylinder Diesel Engine used for Chicken fat Based Biodiesel Testing
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
756
Photograph 2: computerized I.C. Engine Test Rig
SPECIFICATIONS OF TEST RIG
Computerized Single Cylinder Diesel Engine Test Rig :
Description Value
Manufacturer Kirlosker oil engins Ltd .,Pune
Engine Type Single Cylinder, 4 Stroke, water cooled, Diesel engine.
Cylinder Single
Stroke 110mm
Cubic capacity 661 cc (0.661 ltr.)
Bore 87.5 mm
Net Power 7 HP @ 1500 rpm
Compression Ratio 17.5 :1
• Dynamometer specification
1] Type –Eddy Current
2] Max.Power.-20 kw@2450/10000 rpm.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE:
First of all make all the electric supply switches ‘ON’ and check water supply connections to engine and dynamometer through rotameter. Make fuel supply ‘ON’, if separate arrangement is done for storage and supply of biodiesel .After conditioning the equipment ,the engine is started and warm up for 10minutes.start the computer and select the mode ‘configure’ to enter the data like fuel density and calorific value etc. Then select the RUN option, which continuously
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
757
displays the process screen. Each test is conducted and data is stored at five different loads, conditions namely no load, 25%, 50%, 75% and full load. Engine is run for 15-20minits for one test and data available is stored by log key at the end of time interval. Next tests are conducted. The tests are conducted in sequence like CFBD10, CFBD15, CFBD20, CFBD25, CFBD30 and with pure diesel.
Engine Performance Analysis:
The performance of an internal combustion engine is mainly studied with the help of operating characteristics. These characteristics obtained by using diesel and chicken fat based biodiesel in single cylinder, four stroke diesel engine are discussed below. Measurements and Results
Measurement and results got by conducting trials using diesel and blends of chicken fat based biodiesel with the help of engine software are represented in the following tables 1to6.These results are used to study various operating characteristics of engine such as specific fuel consumption ,Brake thermal efficiency, torque and power etc. It also provided the necessary data for calculating heat balance sheet.
Measurement and result of trial using Diesel: - Computerized Test Rig Reading
Speed [rpm ]
Load [kg]
T1 [˚c ]
T2 [˚c ]
T3 [˚c]
T4 [˚c ]
T5 [˚c ]
T6 [˚c ]
Fuel cc/min
Air mm
F1 Kg/hr
F2 Kg/hr
F3 [lph]
F4 [lph]
1404 0 23.83 29.93 23.83 26.76 159.1 141.6 6.81 87.4 0.34 30.31 260 70
1391 4.32 24.37 31.25 24.37 28.03 210.4 187.5 10 85.9 0.50 30.04 260 70
1373 8.65 24.46 33.01 24.46 29.49 294 264.1 13.5 83.4 0.68 29.61 260 70
1324 12.98 25.10 35.01 25.10 31.01 390 361.3 17.2 78.3 0.86 28.68 260 70
1267 17.31 24.95 37.89 24.95 32.96 508.3 475.1 24.8 72.1 1.23 27.53 260 70
Result Table
Sr. No.
Torque [Nm]
B.P. [kw]
F.P. [kw]
I.P. [kw]
BMEP [ bar]
IMEP [ bar]
BThE %
IThE %
MechE %
SFC Kg/kwhr
VolE %
A/F Ratio
1 0.31 0.45 1.89 2.33 0.58 3.01 11.29 58.95 19.15 0.76 93.60 89.42
2 0.78 1.12 1.40 2.52 1.46 3.29 19.19 43.34 44.28 0.45 93.61 60.26
3 1.71 2.42 2.09 4.51 3.19 5.96 30.62 57.15 53.58 0.28 93.48 43.75
4 2.64 3.59 1.29 4.88 4.92 6.69 35.89 48.83 73.49 0.24 93.90 33.47
5 3.47 4.52 0.58 5.10 6.47 7.30 31.37 35.40 88.63 0.27 94.21 22.31
Heat Balance sheet
HBP HGAS HJW RAD
11.29 34.76 46.65 7.30
19.19 32.90 35.79 12.12
30.62 35.28 32.72 1.38
35.89 36.94 29.97 0.0
31.37 33.18 27.16 8.29
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
758
Measurement and result of trial using CFBD10:- Computerized Test Rig Reading
Speed [rpm ]
Load [kg]
T1 [˚c ]
T2 [˚c ]
T3 [˚c]
T4 [˚c ]
T5 [˚c ]
T6 [˚c ]
Fuel cc/min
Air mm
F1 Kg/hr
F2 Kg/hr
F3 [lph]
F4 [lph]
1454 0 25.73 32.37 25.7 31.2 188 176 5.71 92 0.29 31.1 260 70
1438 4.32 26.12 32.67 26.1 30.8 233 215 10.0 90.5 0.50 30.8 260 70
1428 8.65 25.83 33.79 25.8 31.5 314 289 14.6 87.8 0.73 30.3 260 70
1401 13.11 25.98 35.35 25.9 33.1 410 382 18.6 84.8 0.94 29.8 260 70
1377 17.09 26.12 37.89 26.1 35.9 539 509 25.8 81 1.30 29.2 260 70
Result Table
Torque [Nm]
B.P. [kw]
F.P. [kw]
I.P. [kw]
BMEP [ bar]
IMEP [ bar]
B.Th,E %
I,ThE. %
Mech.E. %
SFC Kg/kwhr
VolE %
A/F Ratio
0.30 0.46 3.07 3.53 0.57 4.40 1.27 9.85 12.9 0.63 92.74 108.4
0.84 1.24 4.43 5.67 1.57 7.15 1.98 9.02 21.95 0.40 92.96 61.26
1.66 2.43 3.35 5.78 3.09 7.34 2.65 6.31 42.07 0.30 92.21 41.43
2.56 3.68 0.82 4.50 4.76 5.83 3.14 3.85 81.71 0.25 92.40 31.86
3.33 4.71 0.93 5.65 6.21 7.44 2.91 3.48 83.48 0.28 92.01 22.5
Heat Balance sheet
HBP HGAS HJW RAD
1.27 4.82 5.60 88.31
1.98 3.51 3.15 91.36
2.65 3.35 2.63 91.37
3.14 3.48 2.42 90.96
2.91 3.33 2.19 91.57
Measurement and result of trial using CFBD15:- Computerized Test Rig Reading
Speed [rpm ]
Load [kg]
T1 [˚c ]
T2 [˚c ]
T3 [˚c]
T4 [˚c ]
T5 [˚c ]
T6 [˚c ]
Fuel cc/min
Air mm
F1 Kg/hr
F2 Kg/hr
F3 [lph]
F4 [lph]
1449 0.00 26 33.0 26.07 32.18 182.6 175.7 6.35 91.6 0.32 31.03 260 70
1442 4.32 26.2 33.25 26.27 31.93 237.3 216.8 10.4 91 0.52 30.92 260 70
1419 8.65 25.5 34.72 25.54 32.67 313.9 284.1 14.0 87.2 0.71 30.27 260 70
1406 12.9 27.4 36.38 27.39 33.64 414.4 378.9 19.6 84.9 0.99 29.87 260 70
1370 17.3 23.4 38.67 23.39 35.94 540 501.9 25.8 80.2 1.30 29 260 70
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
759
Result Table
Torque [Nm]
B.P. [kw]
F.P. [kw]
I.P. [kw]
BMEP [ bar]
IMEP [ bar]
BThE %
IThE %
MechE %
SFC Kg/kwhr
VolE %
A/F Ratio
0.30 0.45 0.0 0.16 0.56 0.20 1.14 0.42 40 0.71 92.84 97.37
0.88 1.30 3.16 4.47 1.64 5.62 2.03 6.94 29.21 0.40 92.94 58.92
1.70 2.48 1.60 4.09 3.18 5.22 2.86 4.71 60.82 0.28 92.46 42.76
2.57 3.71 0.53 4.24 4.78 5.47 3.06 3.5 87.41 0.27 92.10 30.28
3.44 4.84 0.65 5.5 6.41 7.28 3.04 3.45 88.13 0.27 91.84 22.33
Heat Balance sheet
HBP HGAS HJW RAD
1.14 4.25 5.36 89.25
2.03 3.52 3.29 91.18
2.86 3.52 3.20 90.42
3.06 3.41 2.24 91.29
3.04 3.37 2.90 90.69
Measurement and result of trial using CFBD20:- Computerized Test Rig Reading
Speed [rpm ]
Load [kg]
T1 [˚c ]
T2 [˚c ]
T3 [˚c]
T4 [˚c ]
T5 [˚c ]
T6 [˚c ]
Fuel cc/min
Air mm
F1 Kg/hr
F2 Kg/hr
F3 [lph]
F4 [lph]
1460 0 26.56 32.28 26.56 30.52 168 156 6.87 93.07 0.35 31.27 260 70
1434 4.32 26.76 32.71 26.76 31.05 226 208 10.1 90.47 0.51 30.83 260 70
1421 8.65 24.02 34.08 24.02 32.37 311 287 15.2 87.46 0.77 30.31 260 70
1390 12.98 27.39 37.21 27.39 34.38 422 398 19.8 83.50 1.00 29.61 260 70
1341 17.31 27.59 38.43 27.59 36.67 532 506 26 78.07 1.31 28.64 260 70
Result Table
Torque [Nm]
B.P. [kw]
F.P. [kw]
I.P. [kw]
BMEP [ bar]
IMEP [ bar]
BThE %
IThE %
MechE %
BSFC Kg/kwhr
VolE %
A/F Ratio
0.32 0.49 4.29 4.77 0.60 5.93 1.14 11.2 10.18 0.71 92.84 90.34
0.83 1.22 3.27 4.49 1.54 5.68 1.93 7.11 27.18 0.42 93.59 60.11
1.68 2.45 3.25 5.70 3.13 7.28 2.60 6.04 43.03 0.31 92.47 39.57
2.63 3.76 2.25 6.00 4.91 7.84 3.05 4.88 62.61 0.27 92.36 29.61
3.43 4.73 1.10 5.83 6.40 7.89 2.93 3.62 81.13 0.28 92.57 21.87
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
760
Heat Balance sheet
BP HGAS HJW RAD
1.14 3.57 4.05 91.24
1.93 3.38 2.85 91.84
2.60 3.21 3.22 90.96
3.05 3.39 2.41 91.15
2.93 3.24 2.03 91.80
Measurement and result of trial using CFBD25:- Computerized Test Rig Reading
Speed [rpm ]
Load [kg]
T1 [˚c ]
T2 [˚c ]
T3 [˚c]
T4 [˚c ]
T5 [˚c ]
T6 [˚c ]
Fuel cc/min
Air mm
F1 Kg/hr
F2 Kg/hr
F3 [lph]
F4 [lph]
1426 0 25.44 31.59 25.44 30.27 162.6 151 6.35 90.35 0.32 30.81 260 70
1413 4.32 26.42 33.15 26.42 31.20 223.14 204 10.38 87.97 0.52 30.40 260 70
1393 8.42 26.9 34.67 26.9 31.64 300.78 277 14.16 85.35 0.71 29.94 260 70
1368 12.84 23.49 36.13 23.49 34.42 395 374 19.31 82.32 0.97 29.41 260 70
1322 17.33 27.69 38.48 27.69 36.72 526 504 24.69 76.39 1.24 28.33 260 70
Result Table
Torque [Nm]
B.P. [kw]
F.P. [kw]
I.P. [kw]
BMEP [ bar]
IMEP [ bar]
BThE %
IThE %
MechE %
BSFC Kg/kwhr
VolE %
A/F Ratio
0.30 0.45 0.40 0.85 0.57 1.08 1.16 2.2 52.79 0.72 93.65 96.43
0.85 1.23 1.38 2.61 1.58 3.35 1.96 4.16 47.16 0.42 93.26 58.19
1.64 2.35 00 1.23 3.06 2.26 2.75 2.02 51.68 0.30 93.18 42.02
2.50 3.52 2.74 6.26 4.67 8.3 3.01 5.36 56.2 0.28 93.19 30.24
3.38 4.59 0.69 5.28 6.30 7.24 3.08 3.54 86.98 0.27 92.89 22.79
Heat Balance sheet
HBP HGAS HJW RAD
1.16 3.74 4.85 90.25
1.96 3.31 3.25 91.49
2.75 3.37 2.74 91.14
3.01 3.30 3.27 90.41
3.08 3.41 2.19 91.32
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
761
Measurement and result of trial using CFBD30:- Computerized Test Rig Reading
Speed [rpm ]
Load [kg]
T1 [˚c ]
T2 [˚c ]
T3 [˚c]
T4 [˚c ]
T5 [˚c ]
T6 [˚c ]
Fuel [cc/min]
Air [mm]
F1 Kg/hr
F2 Kg/hr
F3 [lph]
F4 [lph]
1439 0 26.46 33.35 26.46 31.49 172.8 167.4 5.93 91.29 0.30 30.9 260 70
1395 4.32 27.25 33.40 27.25 31.93 225.1 210 10.8 86.45 0.54 30.13 260 70
1336 8.65 26.66 35.08 26.66 31.59 299 276.8 12.6 80.29 0.64 29.04 260 70
1294 12.98 26.81 35.25 26.81 33.35 376 357.4 17.3 75.65 0.87 28.19 260 70
1334 17.33 26.90 37.45 26.9 34.42 523 496.5 25.3 78.23 1.27 28.66 260 70
Result Table
Torque [Nm]
B.P. [kw]
F.P. [kw]
I.P. [kw]
BMEP [ bar]
IMEP [ bar]
BThE %
IThE %
MechE %
BSFC Kg/kwhr
VolE %
A/F Ratio
0.30 0.45 5.26 5.71 0.57 7.20 12.45 157.8 17.89 0.66 93.2 103
0.84 1.20 1.88 3.09 1.56 4.01 18.22 46.8 38.92 0.45 93.6 55.36
1.74 2.39 3.05 5.44 3.24 7.38 30.79 70 43.87 0.27 94.2 45.41
2.49 3.30 3.66 6.96 4.63 9.76 31.19 65.7 47.44 0.26 94.4 32.22
3.40 4.66 0.37 5.03 6.34 6.84 30.18 32.6 82.60 0.27 93.1 22.49
Heat Balance sheet
HBP HGAS HJW RAD
12.45 42.87 57.55 00
18.22 31.53 28.22 22.04
30.79 35.83 32.78 0.59
31.19 33.23 24.11 11.71
30.18 33.23 20.66 15.92
PERFORMANCE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS GRAPHS :
1] Load Vs Torque for various blends of chicken fat biodiesel and Diesel.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 5 10 15 20
TO
RQ
UE
[N
-m]
LOAD [Kg]
Load Vs Torque
DIESEL
CFBD10
CFBD15
CFBD20
CFBD25
CFBD30
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
762
The effect of chicken fat biodiesel and its blends and diesel fuel on engine torque are as shown in above graph .The values of torque for fuel are given in test result tables .The engine torque increases with increasing loads for biodiesel and diesel. It is observed that the torque values of biodiesel blends are slightly lower than diesel at all load conditions. But there is no significant variation.
2] Load Vs Brake Power for various blends of chicken fat biodiesel and Diesel.
The variation of brake power with load for chicken fat biodiesel blends and diesel is shown in above graph. The values of Brake power for each fuel are given in test result tables .it is observed that the brake power for chicken fat based biodiesel blends is slightly more than diesel at 25% load condition .CFBD10, CFBD15, CFBD20 has brake power is slightly more than diesel at 50%,75% and at full load condition.
3] Load Vs Friction Power for various blends of chicken fat biodiesel and Diesel.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20
BR
AK
E P
OW
ER
[Kw
]
LOAD [Kg]
Load Vs Brake Power
DIESEL
CFBD10
CFBD15
CFBD20
CFBD25
CFBD30
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20
FR
ICT
ION
AL
PO
WE
R [
Kw
]
LOAD [Kg]
Load Vs Frictional Power
DIESEL
CFBD10
CFBD15
CFBD20
CFBD25
CFBD30
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
763
The variation of friction power with load for chicken fat biodiesel blends and diesel are shown in above graph. The values of friction power for each fuel are given in test result tables. CFBD10 has less frictional power than diesel at 75 % load only. For 50%, 75% load CFBD15 has less frictional power than diesel and nearly equal power at full load that of diesel. It is observed that Frictional Power for CFBD25 is lower than the diesel at 25% load and nearly equal to diesel at full load condition. CFBD 20 and CFBD30 have more frictional power than diesel at all loading conditions. The trend of friction power curves for biodiesel blends is dissimilar to that of diesel fuel. 4] Load Vs Indicated Power for various blends of chicken fat biodiesel and diesel:
The variation of indicated power with load for chicken fat based biodiesel blends and diesel are shown in graph above .the values of indicated power for each fuel are given in result tables. CFBD 10 has less indicated power at 75 % load only. CFBD15 has less Indicated power than diesel at no load, 50 % and 75% load. Indicated power of CFBD25 is lower than diesel at no load and 50 % load.CFBD20 and CFBD 30 has more indicated power at all loading condition than diesel. 7] Load Vs Brake Thermal Efficiency for various blends of chicken fat biodiesel and diesel:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 5 10 15 20
IND
ICA
TE
D P
OW
ER
[K
w]
LOAD [Kg]
Load Vs Indicated Power
DIESEL
CFBD10
CFBD15
CFBD20
CFBD25
CFBD30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20
BR
AK
E T
HE
RM
AL
EF
FIE
CIN
CY
[%]
LOAD[Kg]
Load Vs Brake Thermal Efficiency
DIESEL
CFBD10
CFBD15
CFBD20
CFBD25
CFBD30
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
764
The variation of Brake Thermal Efficiency with load for chicken fat biodiesel blends and diesel is shown in graph. The values of Brake Thermal Efficiency for each fuel are given in result tables. The overall range of brake Thermal efficiency is up to 35%.CFBD10 has Brake Thermal Efficiency at no load and full load is more than diesel. CFBD 15, CFBD 20 and CFBD 25have brake Thermal efficiency at no load, 25% and full load is more than diesel. CFBD 30 has brake Thermal efficiency at no load, 50 % is similar to diesel. 8] Load Vs Indicated Thermal Efficiency for various blends of chicken fat biodiesel and diesel:
The variation of Indicated Thermal Efficiency with load for chicken fat biodiesel blends and diesel is shown in graph. The values of Indicated Thermal Efficiency for each fuel are given in result tables. The overall range of brake Thermal efficiency is up to 88%.CFBD10, CFBD 15, CFBD 20 and CFBD 25have Indicated Thermal Efficiency except no load is more than diesel. CFBD 30 has indicated Thermal Efficiency except at full load is more than diesel. 9] Load Vs Mechanical Efficiency for various blends of chicken fat biodiesel and diesel:
The variation of Mechanical Efficiency with load for chicken fat biodiesel blends and diesel is shown in graph. The values of mechanical efficiency for each fuel are given in result table .CFBD10 has mechanical efficiency more only at 75% load and nearly equal to diesel at full load. CFBD 15 has mechanical efficiency is more than diesel at no load, 50%, 75% and nearly
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20
Ind
ica
ted
Th
erm
al
Eff
icie
ncy
[%
]
LOAD[Kg]
Load Vs Indicated Thermal Efficiency
DIESEL
CFBD10
CFBD15
CFBD20
CFBD25
CFBD30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20
Me
cha
nic
al
Eff
icie
ncy
[%]
Load [Kg]
Load Vs Mechanical Efficiency
DIESEL
CFBD10
CFBD15
CFBD20
CFBD25
CFBD30
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
765
equal at full load. CFBD 20 has mechanical efficiency is less than diesel at no load, 50%, 75% and nearly equal at full load. CFBD 25 have mechanical efficiency is more than diesel at only no load, 25% load and at full load is nearly equal to diesel. CFBD 30 has of Mechanical Efficiency except at full load is less than diesel. 10] Load Vs Specific fuel consumption for various blends of chicken fat biodiesel and diesel:
The variation of Specific fuel consumption with load for chicken fat biodiesel blends and diesel is shown in graph. The values of Specific fuel consumption for each fuel are given in result table .CFBD10, CFBD 15 has Specific fuel consumption less only at all load and nearly equal to diesel at full load only. CFBD 20, CFBD 25 and .CFBD 30 has Specific fuel consumption is nearly equal to diesel at 50%, 75% and full load. 11] Load Vs Volumetric Efficiency for various blends of chicken fat biodiesel and diesel:
The variation of volumetric efficiency with load for chicken fat biodiesel blends and diesel is shown in graph. The values of volumetric efficiency of each fuel are given in result table .CFBD10, CFBD15 has volumetric efficiency less at all loads than diesel. CFBD 20 has volumetric efficiency less at all loads than diesel except at 25% load. CFBD 25 has volumetric efficiency less at all loads than diesel except at no load. CFBD 30 has volumetric efficiency is more than diesel at diesel at 50%, 75% load.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 5 10 15 20
S.F
.C.[
Kg
/kw
-hr]
LOAD[Kg]
Load Vs Specific Fuel Consumption
DIESEL
CFBD10
CFBD15
CFBD20
CFBD25
CFBD30
91.5
92
92.5
93
93.5
94
94.5
95
0 5 10 15 20
Vo
lum
etr
ic E
ffic
ien
cy[%
]
Load [kg]
Load Vs volumetric Efficiency
DIESEL
CFBD10
CFBD15
CFBD20
CFBD25
CFBD30
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
766
EMISSION MEASUREMENT RESULTS:
In this testing we use Bosch smoke meter to measurement of the intensity of smoke stain on
filter paper at full load for all samples of chicken fat biodiesel blends and diesel fuel are as
follows.
1] At 100% load Pure Diesel Emission sample paper obtain from Bosch smoke meter as shown
Bosch Smoke Unit no = 1BSU
2] At 100% load CFBD10 Emission sample paper obtained from Bosch smoke meter as shown
Bosch Smoke Unit no = 2 BSU
3] At 100% load CFBD15 Emission sample paper obtained from Bosch smoke meter as shown
Bosch Smoke Unit no = 2 BSU
4] At 100% load CFBD20 Emission sample paper obtained from Bosch smoke meter as shown
Bosch Smoke Unit no = 2 BSU
5] At 100 % load CFBD25 Emission sample paper obtained from Bosch smoke meter as shown
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
767
Bosch Smoke Unit no = 4 BSU
6] At 100% load CFBD 30Emission sample paper obtained from Bosch smoke meter as shown
Bosch Smoke Unit no = 3 BSU
From above sample observations smoke intensity for all blends is CFBD 25 and CFBD 30 are
slight more than diesel but within allowable range that nearly equal to diesel and in safe zone.
CONCLUSION
The Chicken fat based biodiesel with10%, 15%, 20%, 25%and 30%blend with petroleum diesel
are used in the conventional diesel engine without any modification in engine design or fuel
system, performance evaluation. To improve cold flow behavior during winter session only we
have use Magnesium based additives reduce the pour point, flash point and viscosity of chicken
fat biodiesel fuel .No any trouble was found during entire running period of engine. It was
observed that the Performance operating characteristics that is Torque, brake power, frictional
power, indicated power, brake thermal efficiency, Indicated Thermal Efficiency, Specific fuel
consumption Volumetric Efficiency, and mechanical efficiency is nearly equal to petroleum
diesel at various loading conditions at constant speed for Chicken fat based biodiesel blend with
diesel at 10% [CFBD10], CFBD15, CFBD20, CFBD25and CFBD30 Biodiesel blends. Smoke
intensity we checked for all blends were found nearly equal to diesel sample. Due to the health
risks of waste chicken oils, it is considered as waste oil by the food industry. Therefore, waste
chicken fat is a cheap raw material and its low operating cost in biodiesel production make this
study a capable one for possible technological applications. Chicken fat biodiesel blended with
diesel fuel can be used as an alternative fuel in conventional diesel engines without any major
modification.
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012), © IAEME
768
REFERENCES
1] John B Haywood, “Fundamentals of Internal combustion Engine”, McGraw Hill Intentional
Edition (2005)26-50.
2] Metin Guru, Atilla Koca, Ozer Can, Can Cinar, Fatih Sahin, “Biodiesel production from waste
chicken fat based sources and evaluation with Mg based additive in a diesel engine”, Renewable
Energy 35 (2010) 637–643 .