Comparative study of various biofuel combinations derived from agricultural residues on the performance and emissions of CI engine

Figures & data

Table 1. Properties of pilot fuels and biomass.

Sl No.	Properties	Diesel	HOME	Composition	Agricultural residues
					RGS	SBS	CS
1	Viscosity @ 40°C(cst)	4.59 (Low)	5.6	Moisture content % w/w	4.20	7.47	7.03
2	Flash point°C	56	163	Volatile matter % w/w	82.84	85.83	79.39
3	Calorific value MJ/kg	45	36	Fixed carbon % w/w	8.94	2.67	8.03
4	Specific gravity	0.830	0.870	Ash content % w/w	4.02	4.03	5.54
5	Density kg/m^3	830	890	C	49.23	47.83	46.97
6	Type of oil	Diesel	Non-edible	H	5.949	5.12	5.58
7				N	3.789	3.13	3.2
8				O	30.03	29.63	28.93
9				Calorific value, MJ/kg	16.8	14.6	12.5
10				Bulk density kg/m^3	501.5	487.8	416.3

Table 2. HHV prediction using the correlations.

Correlations	HHV (MJ kg^−1)			Reference/ Equations
	Redgram stalk	Soyabean stalk	Chilli stalk
Based on proximate analysis	17.27	16.00	16.34	[Cordero et al. 2001](1)
HHV = 354.3FC + 170.08VM
HHV = 0.196FC + 14.119	15.87	14.90	15.69	[Demirbaş 1997](2)
HHV = 0.1905VM+ 0.2521FC	18.03	17.37	17.14	[Yin 2011](3)
Based on ultimate analysis	19.42	18.33	18.45	[Yin 2011](4)
HHV = 0.2949C+ 0.825H
HHV = 1.3675 + 0.3137C+ 0.7009H + 0.0318O	19.20	18.17	18.20	[Sheng and Azevedo 2005](5)
HHV = 0.763 + 0.301C+ 0.525H + 0.064O	19.10	18.22	18.16	[Jenkins and Ebeling 1985](6)

Table 3. Lignocellulosic properties of biomass.

Agricultural residues	Cellulose %	Hemicellulose %	Liggnin %	xReference
RGS	31.6	19.2	19.8	(Mythili et al. 2013)
SBS	25.9	30.0	21.0	(Mythili et al. 2013)
CS	25.91	31.4	24.7	(Hua et al. 2016,Simonovska et al. 2016)

Figure 1. Experimental setup.

Table 4. Specifications of CI engine and downdraft gasifier.

	Diesel engine		Downdraft gasifier
Sl. No.	Parameters	Specifications	Parameters	Specifications
1	Type of engine	Kirloskar single cylinder 4 stroke DI diesel engine	Supplier	Harith Avani Technologies Pvt Ltd. Bangalore
2	Nozzle opening Pressure	200–230 bar IOP	Rated capacity and gas flow	62735 kJ/h and 15 Nm^3/h
3	Rated power	5.2 kW @1500 rpm	Average gas calorific value	19 MJ/kg
4	Cylinder diameter	87.5 mm	Rated biomass consumption	10 kg/hr
5	Stroke length	110 mm	Hopper storage capacity	40 kg
6	Compression Ratio	17.5: 1	Conversion efficiency	70–80%

Figure 2. Effect of biomass feedstock type on the BTE.

Figure 3. Effect of biomass feedstock type on the EGT.

Figure 4. Effect of biomass feedstock type on the volumetric efficiency.

Figure 5. Effect of biomass feedstock type on the smoke opacity.

Figure 6. Effect of biomass feedstock type on the HC emission.

Figure 7. Effect of biomass feedstock type on the CO emission.

Figure 8. Effect of biomass feedstock type on the NOx emission.

Figure 9. Effect of biomass feedstock type on the fuel substitution.

Figure 10. Effect of biomass feedstock type on the ignition delay.

Figure 11. Effect of biomass feedstock type on the combustion duration.

Figure 12. Cylinder pressure versus CA for different fuel combinations.

Figure 13. Heat release rate versus CA for different fuel combinations.

Cordero, T., F. Marquez, J. Rodriguez-Mirasol, and J. J. Rodriguez. 2001. “Predicting Heating Values of Lignocellulosics and Carbonaceous Materials from Proximate Analysis.” Fuel 80 (11): 1567–1571. doi:10.1016/S0016-2361(01)00034-5.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Demirbaş, A. 1997. “Calculation of Higher Heating Values of Biomass Fuels.” Fuel 76 (5): 431–434. doi:10.1016/S0016-2361(97)85520-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yin, C. Y. 2011. “Prediction of Higher Heating Values of Biomass from Proximate and Ultimate Analyses.” Fuel 90 (3): 1128–1132. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2010.11.031.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sheng, C., and J. L. T. Azevedo. 2005. “Estimating the Higher Heating Value of Biomass Fuels from Basic Analysis Dat.” Biomass and Bioenergy 28 (5): 499–507. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.11.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jenkins, B. M., and J. M. Ebeling 1985 “Correlation of Physical and Chemical Properties of Terrestrial Biomass with Conversion” Proceedings of Energy from Biomass and Wastes IX, Chicago; 371–400.

 Google Scholar

Mythili, R., P. Venkatachalam, P. Subramanian, and D. Uma. 2013. “Characterization of Bioresidues for Biooil Production through Pyrolysis.” Bioresource Technology 138: 71–78. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.03.161.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hua, B. J., G. Cheng, L. Chen, L. YunLong, H. KunLun, Z. YingPeng, H. LiJiao, and C. Chang ZhiZhou. 2016. “Hemical Composition of Different Parts of Chili Stalks and Their Biogas Production Potentials during Anaerobic Fermentation.” China Environmental Science 36 (7): 2073–2078.

 Google Scholar

Simonovska, J., M. Škerget, Ž. Knez, M. Srbinoska, Z. Kavrakovski, A. Grozdanov, and V. Rafajlovska. 2016. “Physicochemical Characterization and Bioactive Compounds of Stalk from Hot Fruits of Capsicum Annuum L.” Macedonian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering 35 (2): 199–208. doi:10.20450/mjcce.2016.944.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar