Energy 55 (2013) 330e339

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Combined impact of injection pressure and combustion chamber

geometry on the performance of a biodiesel fueled diesel engine
S. Jaichandar a, *, K. Annamalai b
a
Dept. of Automobile Engineering, Sree Sastha Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chennai 600 123, Tamilnadu, India
b
Dept. of Automobile Engineering, Madras Institute of Technology, Anna University, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Improved thermal efficiency, reduction in fuel consumption and pollutant emissions from biodiesel
Received 14 September 2012 fueled diesel engines are important issues in engine research. To achieve these, rapid and perfect air-fuel
Received in revised form mixing are the most important requirements. The mixing quality of biodiesel spray with air can be
17 February 2013
improved by selecting the best injection parameters and better design of the combustion chamber.
Accepted 13 April 2013
Available online 15 May 2013
Experiments were performed using a DI (direct injection) diesel engine equipped with a conventional
jerk type injection system and pistons having HCC (hemispherical combustion chamber) and TRCC
(toroidal re-entrant combustion chamber) geometries. The combined effect of varying, injection pressure
Keywords:
Biodiesel
and combustion chamber geometries, on the combustion, performance and exhaust emissions, using a
Diesel engine blend of 20% POME (pongamia oil methyl ester) by volume in diesel were evaluated. The test results
Combustion chamber showed that improvement in terms of brake thermal efficiency and specific fuel consumption for TRCC
Injection pressure operated at higher injection pressure. Substantial improvements in reduction of emissions levels were
Performance also observed for TRCC operated at higher injection pressure. However improved combustion, due to
Emissions better air motion inside the cylinder and high pressure injection, increased the oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
Increasing injection pressure decreased ignition delay, and increased peak in-cylinder pressure and
maximum heat release rate.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Internal combustion engines, particularly diesel engines play an
important role in automotive, industrial and agricultural sectors.
Although, more fuel efficient, reliable and durable than their spark
ignited counterpart, they have relatively higher emissions and
noise level. The increasing requirement of energy in the form of fuel
and growing concern over environmental pollution caused by the
extensive use of conventional fossil fuels have led to the search for
alternative, but more environment friendly and renewable fuels.
Among various options available as an alternative for diesel fuel,
biodiesel has been reported to be one of the strong contenders for
reductions in environmental pollution [1e3]. Therefore, it is of in-
terest to investigate the use of biodiesel in the diesel engine, aiming
to increase efficiency of operations and to reduce the emissions of
pollutants. A number of experimental investigations were carried out
on the performance, emission and combustion characteristics of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jaisriram18@yahoo.com, jcdhanesh@gmail.com
(S. Jaichandar).
biodiesel fuel in diesel engines without any modification to the diesel
engine. These investigations have reported that the use of biodiesel
blends and neat biodiesel in the diesel engine, decreased exhaust
emissions levels, except oxides of nitrogen (NOx) compared to Ultra
Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) [4e7]. Further, increased brake specific fuel
consumption [8,9] and decreased brake thermal efficiency, and brake
mean effective pressure have been reported [10e12].
The performance and emission characteristics of CI (compres-
sion ignition) engines mainly depend upon the combustion process
[13]. Combustion of the fuel inside the cylinder, in turn depends on
various factors like, fuel injection timing, fuel injection pressure,
engine design such as shape of combustion chamber and position
of injector, fuel properties, number and size of injection nozzle
hole, fuel spray pattern, air swirl, fuel quantity injected, etc. [14].
When compared with ULSD, biodiesel has different physical and
chemical properties, which affect the nature of the combustion
process [15e17]. High viscosity and surface tension of vegetable oil
affect atomization by increasing the droplet size which in turn in-
creases the spray tip penetration [18,19]. Injection pressure of the
injected fuel has a significance effect on the performance and for-
mation of pollutants inside the DI (direct injection) diesel engine
combustion chamber [20,21]. Combustion of fuel in diesel engines

0360-5442/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.04.019
 S. Jaichandar, K. Annamalai / Energy 55 (2013) 330e339 331

depends on the efficient atomization, to increase the surface area of Table 2

the fuel in order to attain improved air-fuel mixing and increased Standard engine specifications.

evaporation rates [22,23]. The reduction in the average droplet Make Kirloskar TV1
diameter increases the heat release rates, facilitates ignition, pro- Type Vertical diesel engine, 4 stroke, water cooled,
vides excellent vaporization and thereby improves combustion single cylinder
efficiency and reduces the pollutant emissions. Higher injection Displacement 661 cc
pressure generally contributes to decreased fuel droplet size, Bore & stroke 87.5 mm & 110 mm
Compression ratio 17.5:1
improved combustion and results in reduction of smoke emissions
Fuel Diesel
[24e27]. Rated brake power 5.2 kW @ 1500 rpm
Once the operating injection parameters are optimally matched Ignition system Compression ignition
to each other with combustion chamber geometry generated tur- Injection timing 23 bTDC (rated)
Injection pressure 200 bar
bulence, they typically result in a fuel spray with small droplet size
Combustion chamber Hemispherical combustion chamber
(good atomization), long tip penetration, narrow spray angle, better
air-biodiesel mixing and the vaporization process. These injection
and air-fuel mixing characteristics play an important role in
improving combustion phenomenon of biodiesel in a DI diesel point, cloud point and pour point were comparable with those of
engine which in turn improve engine performance and harmful ULSD. Even though properties of POME were comparable with
emissions. Hence, an experimental investigation was carried out, to ULSD the viscosity of POME20 was found to be about 14.5% higher
study the combined effect of varying injection pressure and com- and calorific value was 2.3% lower, when compared to ULSD.
bustion chamber geometry on the performance of a biodiesel
fueled diesel engine.
2.2. Experimental setup

2. Materials and methods
2.1. Biodiesel production and properties
In this study, biodiesel was produced from Pongamia seeds
obtained from the tree Pongamia Pinnata. Pongamia is a medium
sized glabrous tree grown in many parts of Asia and Australia.
Pongamia is popularly known as Karanja in India. Pongamia be-
longs to the family Leguminaceae. Among the oilseed plants, Pon-
gamia is the promising one for sustained availability of feedstock
for the production of biodiesel. POME (pongamia oil methyl ester)
was prepared by the transesterification process from raw Pongamia
oil. Transesterification is a chemical process of transforming large,
branched, triglyceride molecules of vegetable oils into smaller,
straight chain molecules, almost similar to ULSD. The process takes
place by the reaction of raw pongamia oil with methyl alcohol in
the presence of alkaline catalyst. The properties of the raw pon-
gamia oil and POME were experimentally evaluated. The properties
of raw pongamia oil, POME and its 20% by volume blend with diesel
(POME20) are compared with the ULSD in Table 1. Most of the
properties of biodiesel like calorific value, viscosity, density, flash
The test engine used was the Kirloskar, single cylinder, four-
stroke, water cooled, diesel engine developing 5.2 kW at
1500 rpm. The detailed technical specifications of the standard
engine are given in Table 2. Fig. 1 shows the schematic diagram of
the experimental setup. The engine used was a constant speed
engine operated at a speed of 1500 rpm. The standard engine had a
hemispherical combustion chamber. It had overhead valves, oper-
ated by push rods. The standard engine was equipped with a con-
ventional jerk type MICO in-line injection pump, which pressurizes
the fuel and injects at a pressure of 200 bar. A three-hole injector
was used, which injects the fuel in the form of fine spray to ensure
good fuel atomization. The fuel was injected into the centrally
positioned combustion chamber made in the piston crown. This
engine was coupled to an eddy current dynamometer with a con-
trol system.
The cylinder pressure was measured by a piezoelectric pressure
transducer fitted on the engine cylinder head and a crank angle
encoder fitted on the flywheel. Both the pressure transducer and
encoder signal were connected to the charge amplifier to condition
the signals for combustion analysis using SeS combustion analyzer.
The engine combustion analyzer, was used to evaluate and

Table 1
Properties of diesel, raw pongamia oil, biodiesel from pongamia and its blend.

Properties Pongamia oil POME POME20 ULSD IS 15607:2005 Test methods IS1448/ASTM

Density (kg/m3) 912 898 862 850 860e890 P16

Kinematic viscosity (cSt) 27.84 5.46 3.49 2.9 2.5e6.0 P 25/D 445
Calorific value (MJ/kg) 34 39.15 43.126 44.12 D5865
Flash Pt ( C) 242 196 91 76 120 P 21/D93
Cloud Pt ( C) 14.6 10.2 7.1 6.5 e D2500
Pour Pt ( C) e 4.2 3.6 3.1 e D2500
Cetane no 46 57.9 51 49 51 P 9/D613
Sulfur, mg/kg 0.007 0.005 21 29 50 P 83/D 5453
Carbon residue, % mass 1.2 0.0035 0.015 0.1 0.05 ASTM 4530
Sulfated ash, % mass 0.014 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.02 P 4/D874
Water content, mg/kg e 340 90 52 500 P 40/D2709
Acid value, mg KOH/g 5.06 0.42 0.15 0.10 0.5 P 1/D 664
Methanol, % mass e 0.09 0.02 e 0.20 EN 14110
Ester content, % mass e 98 e e 96.5 EN 14103
Free glycerol, %mass e 0.01 e e 0.02 ASTM D6584
Total glycerol, % mass e 0.19 e e 0.25 ASTM D6584
Phosphorous, mg/kg e 3.2 e e 10 ASTM D4951
Iodine value, g I2/100 gm 96 86.5 e 38.3 120 EN 14104
Oxidation stability, at 110  C, h e 11.6 e e 6 EN 14112
332 S. Jaichandar, K. Annamalai / Energy 55 (2013) 330e339

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental setup.

determine combustion characteristics such as ignition delay, start
of combustion, estimated end of combustion, mass fraction burnt,
heat release rate and pressure variations with respect to crank
angle and volume. UBHC (unburnt hydrocarbon) and CO were
measured using a CRYPTON 5 gas analyzer. The instrument mea-
sures CO, CO2 and UBHC based on Non-Dispersive lnfra-Red (NDIR)
principle. NOx emissions were measured using a chemiluminescent
type SIGNAL heated vacuum NOx analyzer. The smoke intensity was
measured with the help of the AVL 437C smoke meter. It works on
the principle of extinction of light between light source and
receiver.
2.3. Engine modifications
In the present investigation, to investigate the effects of com-
bustion chamber geometry on performance, combustion and
emission characteristics of biodiesel fueled DI diesel engine the
piston bowl geometry was modified to have Toroidal Re-entrant
Combustion Chamber (TRCC) from the standard Hemispherical
open type Combustion Chamber (HCC). For both the combustion
chamber configurations, bowl volume was kept constant so that
compression ratio was the same for the investigated engine. The
photographic and sectional view of pistons having the Hemi-
spherical and Toroidal Re-entrant shapes of combustion chambers
employed for this study is shown in Fig. 2.
The shape of the combustion chamber and the fluid dynamics
inside the chamber are important in diesel combustion. As the
piston moves upward, the gas is pushed into the piston bowl. The
geometry of the piston bowl can be designed to produce a squish
and swirling action which can improve the fuel/air mixture for-
mation before ignition takes place. The main goals desired from the
design of chamber geometry are to optimize the mixing of the fuel
and air, before and during ignition, and to improve the flow of the
exhaust products once combustion is complete. T. Saito et al. [28]
compared conventional combustion chambers and re-entrant
combustion chambers in terms of the combustion process, engine

Fig. 2. Photographic and sectional view of different combustion chambers employed.

 S. Jaichandar, K. Annamalai / Energy 55 (2013) 330e339 333

performance, and NOx and smoke emissions for ULSD operated DI Table 3
diesel engine. It was reported that re-entrant combustion chamber, Uncertainties in the measured parameters.

enhanced combustion because of the higher in-cylinder velocity Parameters Percent uncertainty
accompanied by increased turbulence. Montajir R et al. [29] studied Speed 1.0%
the effect of combustion chamber geometry on fuel spray behavior Load 0.5%
in a small DI diesel engine. It was found that a re-entrant type Time 0.3%
combustion chamber with round lip and round bottom corners Temperature 0.3%
Brake power 0.4%
provided better air and fuel distribution than a simple cylindrical
BSFC 0.8%
combustion chamber. The injector opening pressure was varied by BTE 0.5%
adjusting the spring tension of the injector by screwing or CO 0.3%
unscrewing the screw provided on the top of the injector. Then the UBHC 0.3%
NOx 0.2%
experiments were carried out at different injection opening pres-
Smoke opacity 0.8%
sures of 185, 200, 210, 220, and 230 bar. Pressure 1.0%

2.4. Test method

Experiments were carried out using, ULSD and POME20. To start
with, the performance, emissions and combustion tests were car-
ried out using POME20 and ULSD at various loads for the standard
engine having HCC with manufacturer recommended fuel injection
pressure and fuel injection timing of 200 bar and 23 bTDC
respectively. This performance, combustion and emissions values
were considered as baseline values throughout the experimenta-
tion for comparison with the results obtained from the modified
engine having TRCC with POME20 and ULSD. Then the perfor-
mance, emissions and combustion tests were conducted for the
modified engine using POME20 and ULSD at previously optimized
fuel injection timing of 21 bTDC [30]. The engine tests were carried
out at 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% load. Tests were also performed
at different injection pressures of 185, 210, 220 and 230 bar and
their results were compared and analyzed with standard injection
pressure of 200 bar. In order to have a meaningful comparison of
emissions and engine performance, tests were performed at same
operating conditions, i.e. engine speed, torque and peak conditions
were maintained. In the experimental investigations, different
equipments and instruments were used for measurement of
different parameters. These instruments and equipments are made
by different manufacturers using different technologies. The accu-
racy of measurement and their performance may vary depending
on the operating conditions and experimental environment. Hence
the uncertainty occurs due to fixed or random errors. The
uncertainties in the measured parameters were estimated based on
analytical methods. The uncertainties computed for the measured
quantities are given in Table 3.
3. Results and discussion
The performance, emissions and combustion characteristics of
the base engine with HCC and modified engine with TRCC and at
different injection pressures were determined, compared and
analyzed in terms of brake specific fuel consumption, brake ther-
mal efficiency, unburnt hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, oxides of
nitrogen, smoke emissions and combustion parameters such as
ignition delay, cylinder peak pressure, exhaust gas temperature and
heat release rate.
3.1. Combustion analysis
The variation of peak pressures with respect to brake power for
modified engine and standard engine with ULSD and POME20 at
different injection pressures is shown Fig. 3. It can be seen that the
peak pressure was slightly lower for POME20 when compared to
that of ULSD in the standard engine. This may be attributed to
improper mixing of POME20 with air due to higher viscosity and
lower calorific value for POME20. However, the peak pressure for
TRCC was higher than that for HCC with ULSD and POME20

Fig. 3. Variations of peak pressures.

334 S. Jaichandar, K. Annamalai / Energy 55 (2013) 330e339
Fig. 4. Comparisons of cylinder pressure at full load.
operation. This may be due to better combustion as a result of
better air fuel mixing. The in-cylinder peak pressure for TRCC
increased with higher injection pressure due to a larger amount of
heat release in the premixed combustion phase as a result of better
atomization, air-fuel mixing and enhanced combustion.
The cylinder pressure (P) variation with crank angle for standard
engine and modified engine with POME20 and ULSD at different
injection pressures is shown in Fig. 4. The pressure variations of the
modified engine operated with POME20 followed the similar
pattern of the pressure rise as that of the standard engine operated
at the standard injection pressure of 200 bar. However, the values of
pressure data were higher at all operating conditions. This may be
attributed to better combustion due to enhanced air fuel mixing in
the modified engine. The results also indicated that cylinder pres-
sure variations increased while increasing the fuel injection pres-
sure initially from standard injection pressure, i.e. increasing the
injection pressure from 200 bar to 210 bar and 220 bar and then
decreased with a further increase in pressure to 230 bar. It was also
observed that the best results were associated with an injection
pressure of 220 bar for the modified engine with POME20. This
performance can be reasoned to better combustion due to better
atomization, vaporization of the fuel and air-fuel mixing. It was also
noticed that the cylinder pressure variations and peak cylinder
Fig. 5. Variations of ignition delay.
pressure increase with lowering the injection pressure to 185 bar
from 200 bar. This may be reasoned to poor combustion of POME20
due to poor atomization, vaporization and air fuel mixing. However,
cylinder pressure variations and peak cylinder pressure of the
modified engine operated with POME20 at 220 bar was lower than
the same engine operated with ULSD at all loads of operation. This
may be attributed to the lower calorific value of biodiesel fuel.
Another reason may be due to the higher viscosity, which results in
slightly poorer atomization and poorer combustion.
Fig. 5 shows the variations of ignition delay for unmodified and
modified engine with ULSD and POME20 at different injection
pressures. It was observed that the ignition delay period of POME20
was significantly lower than that of ULSD when tested in the
standard engine. This may be due to the higher cetane number of
biodiesel blend compared to ULSD. It was also observed that for re-
entrant combustion chambers, the ignition delay periods were
lower compared to open type combustion chambers at all loads of
operation. For all test fuels and combustion chamber geometries,
the reduction in ignition delay increased with the increase in load.
This may be due to higher combustion chamber wall temperature
and reduced exhaust gas dilution at higher loads. At high injection
pressures, the ignition delay further decreased as a result of
increased in cylinder temperature due to improved air-fuel mixing
and premixed combustion.
Fig. 6 shows the variations of exhaust gas temperature for
standard engine and modified engine with ULSD and POME20 at
different injection pressures. Exhaust gas temperature increased
with engine load for all test fuels and for both the combustion
chambers used. It was observed that the exhaust gas temperature
of the POME20 blend was higher than that of ULSD and exhaust gas
temperature for re-entrant combustion chambers was higher than
open combustion chambers. This may be due to more complete
combustion as a result of better air fuel mixing and the presence of
oxygen in the POME. The exhaust gas temperature increased with
the increase in injection pressure due to predominant premixed
combustion and diffusion combustion. This may be attributed to
better atomization, air-fuel mixing and vaporization of the fuel
droplets.
The comparison of the heat release rate (HRR) curves for stan-
dard engine and modified engine with ULSD and POME20 at
different injection pressures is shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen from
 S. Jaichandar, K. Annamalai / Energy 55 (2013) 330e339 335

Fig. 6. Comparisons of exhaust gas temperature.

Fig. 7 that the maximum heat release rate of POME20 blend was
lower than that of ULSD in the standard engine. This may be
attributed to shorter ignition delay for POME20 compared with that
of ULSD. In addition, the poor spray atomization characteristics of
biodiesel due to higher viscosity and surface tension may be
responsible for the lower heat release rate. Further it was noticed
that heat release rate during diffusion combustion phase of
POME20 was slightly higher than that of ULSD. However, the heat
release rate curve for re-entrant combustion chambers fueled with
POME20 demonstrated similar but slightly better than the standard
engine fueled with ULSD, and POME20. This may be attributed to
improved air fuel mixing, evaporation and better combustion. In
addition, with the increase in injection pressure maximum heat
release rate further increased due to improved premixed combus-
tion phase. This may be attributed to better atomization and
Fig. 7. Comparisons of heat release rate at full load.
improved air fuel mixing.

Fig. 8. Variations of BSFC.

336 S. Jaichandar, K. Annamalai / Energy 55 (2013) 330e339

Table 4
Comparison of brake specific fuel consumption.

Brake power Brake specific fuel consumption in kg/kW-hr

(kW)
HCC-200 TRCC-200 TRCC-185 TRCC-210 TRCC-220 TRCC-230 HCC-200 bar TRCC-220 bar
bar bar bar bar bar bar (diesel) (diesel)

1.256 0.5760 0.5282 0.6064 0.5261 0.5205 0.5471 0.5343 0.5023

2.512 0.3780 0.3183 0.4036 0.3165 0.3078 0.3364 0.3551 0.2971
3.768 0.3360 0.2706 0.3420 0.2700 0.2639 0.2963 0.2870 0.2554
5.024 0.2880 0.2489 0.3017 0.2472 0.2433 0.2630 0.2603 0.2361

Fig. 9. Comparisons of BTE.

Fig. 10. Variations of UBHC emissions.

 S. Jaichandar, K. Annamalai / Energy 55 (2013) 330e339 337

Fig. 11. Variations of CO emissions.

3.2. Performance analysis
The Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) variations for
standard engine and modified engine with ULSD and POME20 at
different injection pressures are shown in Fig. 8. Table 4 presents
the comparison of BSFC for standard engine and modified engine
with ULSD and POME20 at different injection pressures and loads.
The specific fuel consumption for TRCC (0.243 kg/kW-hr) was
lower than the standard engine having HCC (0.288 kg/kW-hr)
with biodiesel operation. This may be attributed to better com-
bustion of POME20 due to better air fuel mixing. The BSFC for
TRCC further decreased with increasing injection pressure. This
behaviour can be attributed to improved air-fuel mixing due to
better atomization and vaporization of the fuel that led to better
combustion. However, it was noticed that the BSFC increased
when the injection pressure was increased beyond 220 bar. This
outcome could be attributed to poor combustion due to oxygen
starvation due to lower penetration, poor dispersion of the fuel
and weak air entrainment.
Fig. 9 shows the comparison of Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE) of
standard engine and modified engine with ULSD and POME20 at
different injection pressures. It shows that the BTE increased with
the increase in brake power for all fuel and all types of combustion
chambers. BTE of POME20 was lower (28.93%) compared to that of
ULSD (31.7%) with the standard engine having HCC. On the other
hand, BTE for TRCC (33.07% at full load) was higher when compared
to the open type combustion chamber at all loads when operated
with POME20. This may be due to better mixture formation of
POME and air, as a result of better air motion in TRCC. This led to
better combustion of the biodiesel and thus increased the BTE. In
addition, at high injection pressure of 220 bar the BTE further
increased (34.31%) due to better air fuel mixing and complete
combustion. It was also observed that increasing the injection
pressure above 220 bar decreased BTE. This may be due to decrease
in the droplet size of the fuel. A smaller fuel droplet will have lesser
momentum that will affect fuel distribution in air. The decrease in
relative velocity of fuel corresponding to air resulted in poor air
entrainment leading to incomplete combustion.

Fig. 12. Comparisons of NOx emissions.

338 S. Jaichandar, K. Annamalai / Energy 55 (2013) 330e339

Table 5
Variations of oxides of nitrogen emissions.

Brake power Oxides of nitrogen in ppm

(kW)
HCC- TRCC- TRCC- TRCC- TRCC- TRCC- HCC-200 bar TRCC-220 bar
200 200 185 210 220 230 (Diesel) (Diesel)
bar bar bar bar bar bar

0 86 89 85 92 96 94 72 82
1.256 172 177 168 184 192 174 138 159
2.512 284 293 288 298 310 290 232 276
3.768 516 521 508 542 558 512 432 472
5.024 712 722 702 736 745 716 648 694

3.3. Emission analysis proportion of oxygen in POME promotes further oxidation of CO

The comparisons of Unburnt Hydrocarbon (UBHC) emissions for
both TRCC and HCC with POME20 and ULSD at different injection
pressures are shown in Fig. 10. UBHC emissions were reduced over
the entire range of loads for all types of combustion chambers
fueled with POME20 when compared to ULSD operation. It was also
noticed that re-entrant combustion chambers emit lesser levels of
UBHC compared to open type combustion chamber. This may be
due to better combustion of POME as a result of improved swirl and
squish motion of air in re-entrant combustion chambers and
presence of oxygen in POME. There was a reduction of 20.7% HC
emissions for the TRCC compared to the standard engine when
tests were carried out with POME20 and 30% reduction with ULSD
oil at full load operation. Further the increased injection pressure
decreased the formation of UBHC due to better combustion and
reduction in quench layer, due to increased cylinder wall
temperature.
Fig. 11 shows the comparison of CO emissions with brake power
for the two types of combustion chambers at different injection
pressures. CO emissions for all types of combustion chambers
fueled with biodiesel blend decreased significantly when compared
with those of ULSD at all loads. This shows that CO emissions were
greatly reduced with the addition of POME to ULSD. It decreased
with the re-entrant combustion chamber than the open type.
Higher air movement in re-entrant combustion chamber and
presence of oxygen in POME, led to better combustion of fuel
resulting in the decreased CO emissions. Secondly increase in the
during the engine exhaust process. Reduction in CO emissions was
observed with the increased injection pressure operation, mainly
due to better atomization, evaporation and complete combustion.
There was a reduction of 44.5% CO emissions for the TRCC com-
pared to the standard engine when tests were carried out with
POME20.
Fig. 12 shows the variations of oxides of nitrogen emissions for
standard engine and modified engine with ULSD and POME20 at
different injection pressures. Table 5 presents the comparison of
NOx emissions for standard engine and modified engine with ULSD
and POME20 at different injection pressures and loads. The NOx
emissions were higher for TRCC than the standard engine. The
reason for the increase in NOx may be attributed to higher com-
bustion temperatures arising from improved combustion due to
better mixture formation in TRCC and availability of oxygen in
POME. Another reason for increased NOx emissions may be at-
tributed to that, a larger part of the combustion was completed
before TDC for POME, and its blends compared to ULSD due to
their lower ignition delay [31]. So it is highly possible that higher
peak cycle temperatures were reached for POME20 compared to
ULSD. For the same reason, it was also observed that the high
injection pressure further increased the NOx emissions. At full load
for POME20 with the TRCC at 220 bar, the NOx emissions were
745 ppm compared to 648 ppm for the standard engine operated
with ULSD.
The smoke intensity comparison for two types of combustion
chambers with ULSD and POME20 at different injection pressures is

Fig. 13. Comparisons of smoke emissions.

 S. Jaichandar, K. Annamalai / Energy 55 (2013) 330e339
shown in Fig. 13. At all loads and for all combustion chambers,
smoke emissions for the blend decreased significantly when
compared with that of ULSD. The reduction in smoke emissions
may be due to the presence of oxygen in biodiesel blend. It was
observed that, smoke emissions from the re-entrant combustion
chamber were lower than the open combustion chamber. This may
be due to more complete combustion due to better air fuel mixing
and the presence of oxygen in the POME. It was also observed that
the lower injection pressure operation resulted in higher smoke
emissions than high injection pressure. At lower injection pressure,
the atomization process was very poor. This resulted in bigger
droplets and hence bigger core. It was found that smoke emissions
were formed in the core region [32]. Hence, at lower injection
pressure, higher smoke emissions were formed due to bigger
droplet. However, at a higher injection pressure of 220 bar, it was
observed that lower smoke emissions were formed due to small
size fuel droplets, better air-fuel mixing and complete combustion.
TRCC with 220 bar provided 28% reduction of smoke opacity when
compared with the standard engine fueled with ULSD.
4. Conclusion
The combined effect of injection pressure and combustion
chamber geometry on the performance, emission and combustion
characteristics of a naturally aspirated single cylinder four-stroke DI
diesel engine using pongamia oil methyl ester blend, was studied
and the conclusions of the test results are given below.
 The brake specific fuel consumption decreased and the brake
thermal efficiency increased for modified engine having
Toroidal re-entrant combustion chamber operated at increased
injection pressure of 220 bar compared to baseline engine
having Hemispherical combustion chamber operated at injec-
tion pressure of 200 bar due to better air movement, charge
mixing and improved combustion.
 CO, UBHC and smoke intensity were reduced significantly for
modified engine with increased injection pressure due to
improved combustion.
 NOx emissions were increased for modified engine operated
with higher injection pressure because of improved combustion
due to better air-fuel mixing and higher oxygen content in the
POME20 and, increased the combustion chamber temperature.
 The ignition delay of POME20 blend was found to be lesser and
exhaust gas temperatures were higher for modified engine
operated with higher injection pressure compared to baseline
engine. The improved air motion and better mixing in the re-
entrant combustion chamber further decreased ignition delay
and increased the exhaust gas temperatures when compared to
the open combustion chambers.
 TRCC with POME20 at higher injection pressure had shown
maximum peak pressure and maximum heat release rate
compared to the standard engine operated with ULSD.
The present investigation reveals that biodiesel from pongamia
oil is quite suitable as an alternative to ULSD and modified engine,
particularly the engine with the Toroidal re-entrant type combus-
tion chamber operated with the increased injection pressure
(220 bar from 200 bar) improves the performance, combustion and
emissions characteristics due to better air-fuel mixing and
improved combustion.
References
[1] Demirbas A. Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel. Energy Policy
2007;35(9):4661e70.
339
[2] Piqiang T, Zhiyuan H, Diming L, Zhijun L. Exhaust emissions from a light-duty
diesel engine with Jatropha biodiesel fuel. Energy 2012;39(1):356e62.
[3] Song H, Tompkins BT, Bittle JA, Jacobs TJ. Comparisons of NO emissions and soot
concentrations from biodiesel-fueled diesel engine. Fuel 2012;96:446e53.
[4] Tsolakis A, Megaritis A, Wyszynski ML, Theinnoi K. Engine performance and
emissions of a diesel engine operating on diesel-RME (rapeseed methyl ester)
blends with EGR (exhaust gas recirculation). Energy 2007;32(11):2072e80.
[5] Canakci M, Erdil A, Arcaklioglu E. Performance and exhaust emissions of a
biodiesel engine. Applied Energy 2006;83(6):594e605.
[6] Yuan CL, Kuo HH, Chung BC. Experimental investigation of the performance
and emissions of a heavy-duty diesel engine fueled with waste cooking oil
biodiesel/ultra-low sulfur diesel blends. Energy 2011;36(1):241e8.
[7] Muralidharan K, Vasudevan D, Sheeba KN. Performance, emission and com-
bustion characteristics of biodiesel fueled variable compression ratio engine.
Energy 2011;36(8):5385e93.
[8] Bhupendra SC, Naveen K, Haeng MC. A study on the performance and emis-
sion of a diesel engine fueled with Jatropha biodiesel oil and its blends. Energy
2012;37(1):616e22.
[9] Saravanan S, Nagarajan G, Lakshmi Narayana RG, Sampath S. Combustion
characteristics of a stationary diesel engine fueled with a blend of crude rice
bran oil methyl ester and diesel. Energy 2010;35(1):94e100.
[10] Jaichandar S, Annamalai K. Influences of re-entrant combustion chamber
geometry on the performance of Pongamia biodiesel in a DI diesel engine.
Energy 2012;44(1):633e40.
[11] Ozsezen AN, Canakci M. Determination of performance and combustion
characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with canola and waste palm oil
methyl esters. Energy Conversion and Management 2011;52(1):108e16.
[12] Shehata MS, Abdel Razek SM. Experimental investigation of diesel engine
performance and emission characteristics using jojoba/diesel blend and
sunflower oil. Fuel 2011;90(2):886e97.
[13] Challen B, Barnescu R. Diesel engine reference book. England: society of
automotive engineer. Bath Press; 1999.
[14] Kouremenos DA, Hountalas DT, Kouremenos AD. Experimental investigation
of the effect of fuel composition on the formation of pollutants in direct in-
jection diesel engines. SAE paper 1999. 1999-01-0189.
[15] Kowalewicz A, Wojtyniak M. Alternative fuels and their application to com-
bustion engines. Proceedings of IMechE, Part D; Journal of Automobile Engi-
neering 2005;219(1):103e25.
[16] Bhattacharyya S, Reddy CS. Vegetable oils as fuels for internal combustion engines:
a review;. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 1994;57(3):157e66.
[17] Barsic NJ, Humke AL. Performance and emission characteristics of a naturally
aspirated diesel engine with vegetable oils: part 1. SAE Paper 1981810262.
[18] Lee CS, Park SW, Kwon SI. An experimental study on the atomization and
combustion characteristics of biodiesel-blended fuels. Energy and Fuels
2005;19(5):2201e8.
[19] Ejim CE, Fleck BA, Amirfazli A. Analytical study for atomization of biodiesels
and their blends in a typical injector: surface tension and viscosity effects.
Fuel 2007;86(10e11):1534e44.
[20] Nishimura T, Satoh K, Takahashi S, Yokota K. Effect of fuel injection rate on
combustion and emission in a DI diesel engine. SAE paper 1998981929.
[21] Alriksson M, Gjirja S, Denbratt I. The effect of charge air and fuel injection
parameters on combustion with high levels of EGR in a HDDI single cylinder
diesel engine. SAE paper 2007. 2007-1-914.
[22] Arai M, Tabata M, Hiroyasu H, Shimizu M. Disintegration process and spray
characterization of fuel jet injected by a diesel nozzle. SAE paper 1984840275.
[23] Kamimoto T, Matsuoka S. Prediction of spray evaporation in reciprocating
engines. SAE paper 1977770413.
[24] Hountalas D, Kouremenos D, Binder K, Schwarz V, Mavropoulos GC. Effect of
injection pressure on the performance and exhaust emissions of a heavy duty
DI diesel engine. SAE paper 2003. 2003-01-0340.
[25] Yamane K, Uetam A, Shimamoto Y. Influence of physical and chemical prop-
erties of biodiesel fuels on injection, combustion and exhaust emission
characteristics in a direct injection compression ignition engine. International
Journal of Engine Research 2001;2(4):249e61.
[26] Celikten I. An experimental investigation of the effect of the injection pressure
on the engine performance and exhaust emission in indirect injection diesel
engines. Applied Thermal Engineering 2003;23(16):2051e60.
[27] Cingur Y, Altiparmak D. Effect of cetane number and injection pressure on a DI
diesel engine performance and emissions. Energy Conversion and Manage-
ment 2003;44(3):389e97.
[28] Saito T, Daisho Y, Uchida N, Ikeya N. Effects of combustion chamber geometry
on diesel combustion. SAE Paper No. 861186 1986.
[29] Montajir R, Tsunemoto H, Ishitani H, Minami T. Fuel spray behavior in a small
DI diesel engine: effect of combustion chamber geometry. SAE Paper No.
2000-01-0946 2000.
[30] Jaichandar S, Annamalai K. Combined effect of injection timing and combus-
tion chamber geometry on the performance of a biodiesel fuelled diesel en-
gine. Energy 2012;vol. 47(No. 1):388e94.
[31] Jaichandar S, Annamalai K. Emission and combustion characteristics of pon-
gamia oil methyl ester and its diesel blend in a CI engine, energy sources part
A: recovery, utilization, and environmental effects, Article ID 631090, doi:10.
1080/15567036.2011.631090.
[32] Greeves G, Meehan JO. Measurement of instantaneous soot concentration in a
diesel combustion chamber. In: Institution of mechanical engineers confer-
ence on combustion in engines, Paper C88/75 1975. p. 73e82.