iii

- 600 025

: ( : )

&

2009111131 2009111133 2009111136 . & 2009111134

` , - 600 025

iv

, (CO), (NOx) . . , (CO2) (SO2)

. ,

. ,

, . . 20%, 40%, . .

HC, NOx, CO 60%, 80%

ANNA UNIVERSITY CHENNAI 600 025

ABSTRACT
Degree and Branch : BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (Mechanical Engineering)

Month and Year of submission

May 2013

Title of the project work

: Performance and Emission Characteristics of Bio Diesel using Di Diesel Engine

Name of the Students and Roll Number

: S. SAMEER

(2009111131)

M. SARATHCHANDIRAN (2009111133) B. SARAVANA KUMAR P. SHANKAR (2009111134) (2009111136)

Name and Designation of the Guide

: Dr. N.V. MAHALAKSHMI Professor and Head of Division I.C. Engineering Division Department of Mechanical Engineering College of Engineering, Guindy Anna University Chennai 600 025

vi

ABSTRACT
An experimental study will conduct to evaluate the use of Country borage oil, a non-edible straight vegetable oil was blended with petroleum diesel in various proportions to evaluate the performance and emission characteristics of a single cylinder direct injection constant speed diesel engine. In the past few years, the investigation on the bio fuels has been of considerable interest by virtue of their unique physical and chemical properties. The present work involves the usages of country borage oil diesel blend and to study its effect on performance, combustion and emission characteristics in diesel engine. Diesel and country borage oil fuel blends were used to conduct short-term engine performance and emission tests at varying loads in terms of 25% load increments from no load to full loads. Tests were carried out for engine operation and engine performance parameters such as Brake thermal efficiencies of CBM20 blend were slightly higher 3% than that of std. diesel. Significant reduction in HC emissions by 22% and 33% respectively were recorded for CBM 20 blend and cbm40 blend. A significant reduction in smoke emissions by 20% and 40% respectively were recorded for CBM 20 blend and cbm40 blend. A slight increase of 5% and 8% NOx emissions were recorded for cbm20 and cbm40 respectively.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to express our sincere thanks to our guide Dr.N.V.Mahalakshmi, Professor and Head, Internal Combustion Engines Division, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Guindy Campus, Anna University for his useful suggestions, moral support, sustained interest and encouragement throughout the project.

We consider it a privilege to thank Dr.L.Karunamoorthy, Professor and Head, Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Guindy Campus, Anna University for providing facilities for the successful completion of the project.

We owe our thanks to the project coordinator Dr.K.Shanmuga Sundaram, Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Guindy Campus, Anna University for providing us with all facilities for the project,

We

are

extremely

grateful

to

our

review

committee

members

Prof.Dr.R.Saravanan,

Prof.Dr.B.Mohan,

Associate

Prof.Dr.A.Elayaperumal,

Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Guindy Campus, Anna University for their valuable suggestions for the project.

S.SAMEER

M.SARATHCHANDIRAN

B.SARAVANA KUMAR

P.SHANKAR

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO.

TITLE ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE NO. iii vii xi xii 1 2

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 COUNTRY BOURAGE OIL 1.2 ADVANTAGES OF BIO DIESEL OVER CONVENTIONAL DIESEL

2. LITERATURE SURVEY 2.1 ENGINE TESTS WITH VARIUOS OILS 2.2 SUMMARY 2.3 OBJECTIVES OF THIS PROJECT 3. PREPARATION OF FUELS

4 4 10 10 12

3.1 CHARACTERISATION OF COUNTRY BOURAGE OIL 12 3.2 TRANSESTERIFICATION 3.3 OPTIMISATION OF TRANSESTERIFICATION PROCESS 3.3.1 Amount of Alcohol 3.3.2 Amount of Catalyst 3.3.3 Reaction Temperature 3.4 WATER WASH 19 19 19 20 20 15

ix

3.5 SUMMARY 4. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 4.1 SELECTION OF ENGINE 4.2 DYNAMOMETER 4.3 EXHAUST GAS EMISSIONS 4.3.1 Invisible Emission 4.3.2 Visible Emission 4.4 COMBUSTION CHAMBER PRESSURE 4.4.1Pressure Transducer 4.4.2 Angle Encoder 4.4.3 Combustion Analyser 4.5 TEST PROCEDURE 5. GATHERING OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.2 DIESEL 5.3 CBM 20 5.3.1 Model Calculation 5.3.2 Graphs 5.4 CBM 40 5.4.1 Graphs 5.5 CBM 60 5.5.1 Graphs 5.6 CBM 80

22 23 23 24 25 25 25 25 25 26 27 27 28 28 28 29 30 32 34 35 37 38 40

5.6.1 Graphs 5.7 CBM 100 5.7.1 Graphs 5.8 COMPARATIVE GRAPHS 5.8.1 CO vs Load 5.8.2 HC vs Load 5.8.3 NO vs Load 5.8.4 Smoke vs Load 5.8.5 Exhaust Temperature vs Load 5.8.6 Brake Thermal Efficiency vs Load 5.9 PRESSUE CRANK ANGLE GRAPHS 5.9.1 No Load 5.9.2 25% Load 5.9.3 50% Load 5.9.4 75% Load 5.9.5 Full Load 6. CONCLUSION REFERENCE

41 43 44 46 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 50 51 52

xi

LIST OF TABLES TABLE NO.

3.1 3.2 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18

TITLE
Properties of Indian Borage Oil Comparison of Fuel Properties Test Engine Specifications Experimental Results with Diesel as Fuel- I Experimental Results with Diesel as Fuel- II

PAGE NO.
21 21 24 28 28 29 29 29 30 34 34 34 37 37 37 40 40 40 43 43 43

Experimental Results with Diesel as Fuel- III Experimental Results with CBM 20 as Fuel- I Experimental Results with CBM 20 as Fuel- II Experimental Results with CBM 20 as Fuel- III Experimental Results with CBM 40 as Fuel- I Experimental Results with CBM 40 as Fuel- II Experimental Results with CBM 40 as Fuel- III Experimental Results with CBM 60 as Fuel- I Experimental Results with CBM 60 as Fuel- II Experimental Results with CBM 60 as Fuel- III Experimental Results with CBM 80 as Fuel- I Experimental Results with CBM 80 as Fuel- II Experimental Results with CBM 80 as Fuel- III Experimental Results with CBM 100 as Fuel- I Experimental Results with CBM 100 as Fuel- II Experimental Results with CBM 100 as Fuel- III

xii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 TITLE Trans-Esterification Flow chart Layout of Engine Test Rig CBM 20 CO vs Load CBM 20 HC vs Load CBM 20 NO vs Load CBM 20 Smoke vs Load CBM 20 Exhaust Temperature vs Load CBM 40 CO vs Load CBM 40 HC vs Load CBM 40 NO vs Load CBM 40 Smoke vs Load CBM 40 Exhaust Temperature vs Load CBM 60 CO vs Load CBM 60 HC vs Load CBM 60 NO vs Load CBM 60 Smoke vs Load CBM 60 Exhaust Temperature vs Load CBM 80 CO vs Load CBM 80 HC vs Load CBM 80 NO vs Load CBM 80 Smoke vs Load CBM 80 Exhaust Temperature vs Load CBM 100 CO vs Load CBM 100 - HC vs Load CBM 100 NO vs Load CBM 100 Smoke vs Load PAGE NO. 15 23 32 32 33 33 33 35 35 36 36 36 38 38 39 39 39 41 41 42 42 42 44 44 45 45

xiii

5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36

CBM 100 Exhaust Temperature vs Load Comparative CO vs Load Graph Comparative HC vs Load Graph Comparative NO vs Load Graph Comparative Smoke vs Load Graph Comparative Exhaust Temp. vs Load Graph P- Diagram for No Load P- Diagram for 25% Load P- Diagram for 50% Load P- Diagram for 75% Load P- Diagram for Full Load

45 46 46 47 47 48

Comparative Brake Thermal Effi. vs Load Graph 48 49 49 50 50 50

xiv

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

BP BMEP BTE CBM 20 CBM 40 CBM 60 CBM 80 CBM 100 CI CO CO2 DI HC IC IMEP IP NOx O2 pmax SFC TFC

- Brake Power in kW - Brake Mean Effective Pressure - Brake Thermal Efficiency in % - Country Borage Methyl Blend 20% - Country Borage Methyl Blend 40% - Country Borage Methyl Blend 60% - Country Borage Methyl Blend 80% - Country Borage Methyl Blend 100% - Compression Ignition - Carbon Monoxide in % - Carbon di Oxide in % - Direct Ignition - Hydro Carbon in ppm - Internal Combustion Engine - Indicated Mean Effective Pressure - Indicated Power - Nitrogen Oxide Emissions in ppm - Oxygen in % - Peak Pressure in bar - Specific Fuel Consumption in kg/kW-hr - Total Fuel Consumption in kg/s
- Mechanical

mech bt it vol

Efficiency

- Brake Thermal Efficiency in % - Indicated Thermal Efficiency in % - Volumetric Efficiency in %