International Conference on Renewable Energies and Power

Quality (ICREPQ09)
European Association for the
Development of Renewable Energies,
Environment and Power Quality Valencia (Spain), 15th to 17th April, 2009

Effect of Air Intake Pressure Drop on Performance and Emissions of a Diesel

Engine Operating with Biodiesel and Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD)

Rizalman Mamat, Nik Rosli Abdullah, Hongming Xu, Miroslaw L. Wyszynski, Athanasios Tsolakis

School of Mechanical Engineering

The University of Birmingham
B15 2TT Edgbaston
Birmingham, United Kingdom
Phone number:+004 121 4144254, e-mail: rxm518@bham.ac.uk

piston in the case of natural aspirated engine. The

Abstract. The main objective of this research is to pressure drop along the intake system is very dependant
study the effect of the pressure drop in the inlet on engine speed and load, the flow resistance of different
manifold, on the engine performance and exhaust elements in the system, the cross sectional area through
emission system, the fuel used in this v6 diesel engine is which the fresh charge moves, and the charge density[1].
Rapeseed Methy Ester (RME) and a comparison
between (RME) fuel and ultra low sulphure diesel
(ULSD) was conducted and a steady state test for both Measurements of pressure drop along the air intake
fuels were carried at BMEP 3.1 and 4.7 bar. At system could be performed by the use of standard steady
combustion process in terms of cylinder pressure and flow test bed. These measurements are carried out on
heat release, engine performance and exhaust emission complete air intake system together with cylinder head
were analysed, an experimental evidence showed that, and ports. This is particularly important for direct
pressure drop increasing in the intake manifold will injection engines where the port is shaped to generate the
increase the fuel consumption and reduces the engine required degree of swirl within the cylinder [2].
efficincy by using both, RME and ULSD. Engine Therefore, it is very imperative to study the effect of air
efficiency with RME is 1.2%- 2% lower than ULSD, intake pressure drop on a standard multi-cylinder diesel
having exhaust emiession level of NOx and CO slightly engine operating with different fuels. This paper intends
higher for RME comparing to ULSD. Emissions of to comprehend this phenomenon and their effect on the
unburned hydrocarbon for RME is much smaller than combustion quality as well as emissions on conventional
ULSD. V6 diesel engine by means of all modern technologies
such as common-rail injection system and variable
geometry turbine (VGT) which equipped to the engine.
Key words
Air intake, pressure drop, biodiesel

1. Introduction 2. Biodiesel as an Alternative Fuels

Engine performance is sensitive to induction depression The European Parliament and the Council of the
especially for Internal Combustion (IC) engines running European Union have taken serious action to promote the
without turbocharger or supercharger. Most of engine use of biodiesel as an alternative to fossil fuels for
intake systems consist of dirty duct, air box, air cleaner, transport sector [3]. The transportation sector accounted
clean duct, intake manifold plenum, and intake manifold for 21% of all CO2 emissions worldwide in 2002.
runner. The typical length of the air intake system (AIS) Currently, 95% of all energy for transportation comes
can be up to 1 meter. The air path through this manifold from fossil fuel oil [4]. The step taken is not just to
presents a pressure drop challenge to the designer of air reduce the emission but also to reduce the dependence on
induction system. The pressure drop across the air intake imported energy and influence the fuel market for
system is known to have a significant influence on the transport and hence to secure the energy supply in the
indicated power of the IC engine. The pressure drop is medium and long term basis. The ordinance sets a
created due to the suction generated by the descending European aim of 5.75 % replacement of conventional
transport fossil fuels with biofuels by December 2010

https://doi.org/10.24084/repqj07.504 787 RE&PQJ, Vol. 1, No.7, April 2009

[5]. In United Kingdom (UK), 30% of energy turbochargers and a cooled exhaust gas recirculation
consumption was recorded from transport sector in 2004 (EGR) system. However, the EGR is isolated from this
and it is the sector where the emission growth rate is the experiment to avoid the effect of exhaust gas to the
fastest among other sectors [6]. characteristics of fluid flow in intake manifold such as
pressure, temperature and specific heat value. The engine
Studies conducted by different researches around the was operated at equal brake torque for both ULSD and
world also revealed a positive benefits of biodiesel RME. Details of the engine are described in Table 1.
towards reducing emissions level [7-10]. However, it was Figure 1 shows the photograph of the test engine used in
reported that the emission level varies depending on the this study.
type of the sources where the biodiesel produced (rape
seed, palm oil, animal fat etc.) [11]. In addition, the NOx Table 1. Specification of test engine
is slightly increase and proportional to with the mass
percentage of oxygen in the biodiesel and engine speed Engine Specification Details
[12]. RME mixing with diesel fuel reduces the calorific
value of the fuel blend, thus resulted on the engine power Type V6 Twin Turbo
drop and increased in brake specific fuel consumption Injection System Common Rail
(bsfc) [13, 14]. The lubrication properties of RME also
Bore x Stroke 81.0mm x 88.0mm
give a great benefit to the cylinder wall. A series of
experiment with RME showed that after 33 hours of Displacement 2721 cm3
operation, no excess carbon built-up was found in the Compression ratio 17.3
engine [14]. Biodiesel is biodegradable, non-toxic and Injector type Piezo actuator injector
most importantly it is based on renewable resources.
Injection cone angle 156o
Biodiesel feed stocks also do not contain sulfur
compound where it is part of the causes of emissions No. of Injection nozzle holes 6
produce from the combustions of fossil fuels in internal
combustion engines.

Biodiesel is methyl or ethyl ester of fatty acid made by

transesterification process of vegetable oils or animal
fats. Biodiesel has been defined in the European Union in
the technical regulation EN14214 or in the United State
in ASTM 6751-02 [15]. The standard ensure that the
biodiesel meet the regulation in fuel production process
of removing glycerin, catalyst and alcohol. Not as the
pure vegetable oil, the transesterification process ensures
that the unnecessary element removed from the oil. It has
been prove that for the engines running on 100%
vegetable oil in long term may show serious problems in
injector coking, ring sticking, gumming and thickening of
lubricating oil due to higher viscosity and non-volatility
[4, 16]. In the European Union biodiesel is the biggest
biofuel used and represents 82% of the biofuel
production. Biodiesel production for 2003 only in EU-25 Figure 1. Photograph of test engine
was 1,504,000 tons [17]. In 2003, the world total
biodiesel production was around 1.8 billion liters [17].

Most of the modern car in EU are currently has capability EGR cooler

to operate on biodiesel with low percentage of biodiesel

blend without having any problems. The biodiesel could
Dynamometer
be used as it own or blended with conventional fossil fuel Intercooler
1 2 3
without having to change or made any modification on
the standard diesel engines because biodiesel has similar
properties as mineral diesel [18, 19]. Butterfly valve
4 5 6
EGR valve

EGR cooler

3. Experimental Setup
The experimental work was performed on a V6 diesel Figure 2. Schematic diagram of a V6 engine system
engine. The engine was water-cooled, fitted with a high
pressure direct fuel injection system from common rail
and equipped with twin variable-geometry turbine (VGT)

https://doi.org/10.24084/repqj07.504 788 RE&PQJ, Vol. 1, No.7, April 2009

An eddy-current water-cooled Schenck dynamometer different between local static pressure in intake manifold
model W230 with a series S2000 control system was and initial boost pressure divided by initial boost
used to load the engine. The in-cylinder pressure was pressure. The engine was fuelled with biodiesel (RME)
measured by piezometric glow-plug high pressure and ULSD. Both fuels were supplied by Shell Global
transducers supplied by AVL, with model number AVL Solutions UK, details of the properties of the test fuels
GU13G wired to AVL Piezo Amplifiers model 3066A03 are summarized in Table 4.
where pressure was read at crankshaft positions recorded
by a shaft encoder. The piezo sensor used has a The main differences in comparing RME with ULSD are
sensitivity of 15pC/bar. Both data series (pressure and (i) an increase in cetane number by 1.5%, (ii) an increase
crank angle degrees) were recorded through a National in density by 6.8%, (iii) an increase in viscosity by nearly
Instrument data acquisition system NI PCI-6023E 81%, (iv) a decrease in lower calorific value (LCV) by
installed in a Windows XP - based PC. Pressure was 8.7% and (v) a large decrease in sulfur content by 89.1%.
measured in cylinders 2 and 5 as depicted in Figure 2. (vi) The RME contain oxygen bonded in the fuels.
Temperature was measured in all exhaust manifolds by k-
type thermocouples with data recorded by a second Table 3. Pressure drop in air intake systems
National Instrument data acquisition system NI PCI-6224
and monitored through a LabVIEW-coded graphic user Mode Engine Load Pressure drop
interface. [%]
LP1 Low load 0
An off-line steady state analysis based on in-cylinder
pressure was carried out using an in-house LabVIEW LP2 Low load 20
code and the analysis included peak pressure, indicated LP3 Low load 40
power, indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) and LP4 Low load 60
coefficient of variation of IMEP. Furthermore, the PP1 0
Part load
analysis of mass fraction burn, rate of heat release, brake
specific fuel consumption (bsfc), thermal efficiency and PP2 Part load 20
ignition delay were performed to evaluate the overall PP3 Part load 40
parameters of combustion. PP4 Part load 60

The analysis of emissions data was carried out using an

AVL CEB200 analyser and recorded in Excel file. The
Table 4. Fuel properties
exhaust gas was sampled at 30cm downstream of the
turbine exit. The measurement methods included non-
dispersive infrared method (NDIR) for CO and CO2, Property ULSD RME
heated flame ionization detector (HFID) for total Cetane number 53.9 54.7
unburned hydrocarbon and heated chemiluminescence
detector (HCLD) for nitrogen oxides. Density at 15oC [kg/m3] 827.1 883.7
Viscosity at 40oC [cSt] 2.467 4.478
The engine was controlled by an ETAS unit. It was 50% distillation point (oC) 264 335
operated with the boost air temperature and fuel 90% distillation point (oC) 329 342
temperature kept constant at 35oC. The specific engine
LCV [MJ/kg] 42.7 39.0
operating conditions was controlled by the Engine
Management System (EMS) and the engine data was Sulfur [mg/kg] 46 5
recorded by INCA software in a portable computer. The Molecular mass (equivalent) 209 296
experiments were conducted at two different engine loads C (% wt.) 86.5 77.2
as shown by the test conditions in Table 2.
H (% wt.) 13.5 12.0
Table 2. Test condition O (% wt.) - 10.8

Engine Parameter Low Load Part Load

Engine speed, n 1550 rpm 1550 rpm The engine operating conditions are based on the NEDC
Brake Torque, Tb 67 Nm 102 Nm (New European Driving Cycle). The experiment was
conducted under controlled environment. Air temperature
Fuel temperature, Tf 35 oC 35
was controlled between 23C and 27C and the relative
Boost air temperature, Tba 35 oC 35 humidity was measured by RH sensor and recorded by
Window based PC. Air inlet temperature and atmospheric
pressure were measured and calculated to comply with
Table 3 shows the combinations of experimental modes the test validity as explained in Directive 1999/96/EC,
used throughout the test. The pressure drop in intake 2000 [20].
manifold was varying by the use of butterfly valve which
is installed between the intercooler and plenum chamber
as shown in Figure 2. The pressure drop is defined as the

https://doi.org/10.24084/repqj07.504 789 RE&PQJ, Vol. 1, No.7, April 2009

4. Engine Feedback 70

68 (a)
The engine clearly is responding to the pressure drop in 66

Fuel flow [g/min]

the intake manifold, while other parameters are
64 RME
consequences of engine feedback by the EMS.
62 ULSD

60

58
2500
(a) 56
2400 LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4
Mode
Air flow [g/min]

2300
RME
2200
ULSD
2100 94
(b)
92
2000 90

Fuel flow [g/min]

88
1900
86
LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4 RME
84
Mode ULSD
82
80
78
2550 (b) 76
2500 74
2450 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4
Mode
Air flow [g/min]

2400
2350 RME
Figure 4. Fuel flow rate (a) low load, (b) part load
2300 ` ULSD
2250
2200 Figure 4 shows that the fuel flow rate is higher at part
2150 load as compared to low load. and the fuel flow is
2100 slightly increasing as pressure drop increases. At part
PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 load, the increase of fuel flow is clearly responding to
Mode pressure drop, while the fuel flow rate is rapidly
increased as pressure drop increases. At low load, RME
Figure 3 Air flow rate (a) low load, (b) part load is injected 11.5% more than ULSD. Figure 4 also
revealed that at part load, RME is injected 12.5% more
than ULSD. This is the consequence of low calorific
value of RME which is slightly lower resulted to
Figure 3 shows the air flow rate of the intake manifold as consume more fuel to gain similar brake torque with
consequence of pressure drop of RME and ULSD. When ULSD.
air flow is decreasing the pressure drop increased, It is
very well predicted as a direct effect from the flow
restriction in AIS. We can also see that, the engine
operating with RME inducted less air as compared to
ULSD in both low load and part load. Low load inducted 5. Engine Performance and Emissions
less air as compared to high load. Note that the engine
was running at the same brake torque for both ULSD and Figure 5 present the in-cylinder pressure from the
RME. The stoichiometric air-fuel ratio (AFR) for RME is combustion of ULSD and RME at increase of pressure
15.6% lower than ULSD. Therefore, the engine operating drop. The dotted lines represent the in-cylinder pressure
with RME is inducted less air as compared to ULSD to for RME while the straight lines for ULSD. The in-
gain equal brake torque. cylinder pressure data was retracted from cylinder
number 5 of the engine operating at 4.7 Bar BMEP and
1550 rpm. It is found that the in-cylinder pressure for the
case of RME is higher at all pressure drops. The pressure
difference is clearly seen on RME and ULSD at main
fuel injections.

https://doi.org/10.24084/repqj07.504 790 RE&PQJ, Vol. 1, No.7, April 2009

 Figure 6 shows the ignition delay as a function of
Increase
65
pressure pressure drop and fuel type. The ignition delay is clearly
RME drop higher at part load as compared to lower load. Figure 6
also shows that at low load, the ignition delay is slightly
Cylinder Pressure (Bar)

55
increasing as pressure drop increased. While, at part load,
ULSD ignition delay is quickly increased as pressure drop
45 increases. The intake air pressure is one of the parameter
that has been proved to affect the ignition delay. The
change of pressure in air intake systems will varies the
35
charge conditions during the delay period, thus resulted
to decrease the ignition delay as intake pressure increases
25 [1]. Figure 6 is clearly shows that the ignition delay for
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 RME is shorter as compared to ULSD. The best reason to
CAD
explains this phenomena is perhaps due to higher bulk
modulus of RME which caused an early injection event
[9, 19]. The results are also agree with other study when
Figure 5. Cylinder pressure for ULSD and RME at
a diesel engine operating with RME.
different pressure drops (a) low load, (b) part load

It is very interesting to see that even when the pressure

drop decline, the peak pressure decrease. A research 390
conducted by Spaddacini as quote by reference [1] on 380
(a)
autoignition characteristics under controlled conditions
370
revealed that when the boost pressure increase (or
bsfc [g/kWh] 360
pressure drop decrease), the ignition delay decrease,
RME
resulted to the higher peak pressure in engine cylinder. 350
ULSD
The ignition delays reduced associated with reduction in 340
premixing time when the boost pressure increase due to
330
the increase of volumetric efficiency at constant intake
O2 concentration. 320
310
LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4
5
4.5 Mode
(a)
4
Ignition delay [CAD]

3.5
3
RME 340
2.5 (b)
ULSD
2 330
1.5 320
bsfc [g/kWh]

1
0.5 310 RME
0 300 ULSD
LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4
290
Mode
280

4.4 270
PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4
4.35 (b)
Mode
Ignition delay [CAD]

4.3
4.25 Figure 7. Brake specific fuel consumption (a) low load, (b)
RME part load
4.2
ULSD
4.15
4.1 Figure 7 shows the bsfc of the engine operating with
4.05 RME and ULSD at low load and part load. It is found
4
that the bsfc is higher at low load as compared to high
PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4
load. It clearly shows that bsfc for RME is higher as
compared to ULSD. The higher bsfc value in the case of
Mode
RME is due to lower energy content as depicted in Table
Figure 6. Ignition delay as consequences of pressure drop and 4. This resulte cause the engine to inject more fuel to
engine load (a) low load, (b) part load gain equal brake torque. Figure 7 also revealed that the
bsfc is slightly increased as pressure drop increases for

https://doi.org/10.24084/repqj07.504 791 RE&PQJ, Vol. 1, No.7, April 2009

all fuel and engine loads. The bsfc is clearly a function of
3.6
AFR as discussed indetails by Heywood [1]. The
discharge air decrease when the pressure drop increases (a)
3.5
in intake manifold, as depicted in Figure 3. This bring a
lower AFR and increasing engine bsfc. 3.4

NOx [g/kWh]
RME
3.3
ULSD
3.2
25.1
3.1
25 (a)
24.9
3
24.8
LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4
Efficiency [%]

24.7
RME Mode
24.6
24.5 ULSD
24.4
4.5
24.3
24.2 4.45 (b)
24.1
4.4
24

NOx [g/kWh]
LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4 4.35 RME
Mode ULSD
4.3

4.25

28.8 4.2
28.6 (b)
4.15
28.4 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4
Efficiency [%]

28.2 Mode
28 RME
27.8 ULSD Figure 9. Exhaust emissions of NOx (a) low load, (b) part
27.6
load
27.4
27.2
Figure 9 show the NOx emission as consequence of fuel
27 and pressure drop. All NOx level depicted in Figure 9 are
PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4
relatively higher due to no EGR used. It is found that
Mode RME produces higher NOx as compared to ULSD at all
load and pressure drop. The results is generally
Figure 8 Efficiency of the Enghien (a) low load, (b) part load established with the reports by other studies on RME [12,
14]. The researches suggested that the premixed
Figure 8 shows the efficiency of the engine as combustion is promoted when RME is injected by the
consequence of fuel and pressure drops. It is clearly show common rail fuel injections system. This resulted to the
that the engine efficiency is lower for RME as compared advanced of injection timing thus, increased the peak in-
to ULSD. The engine efficiency is higher at part load as cylinder pressure and temperature [9]. The combustion of
compared to low load. Figure 8 also revealed that the RME promotes very low unburned hydrocarbon as
efficiency is slightly decreased as pressure drop compared to ULSD due to high burning rate estimated by
decreases for all of the fuels. heat release as reported by many researchers on biodiesel
[23].

NOx formed by the combustion of fuel in internal

combustion engine typically consist of nitric oxide (NO) The trend of NOx formation in Figure 9 is almost
and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) where the nitric oxide is comparable to in-cylinder maximum pressure (Pmax)
dominants with a small amount of NO2 [1]. The suggested that NOx formation is strongly depend on
formation of NOx is mostly from nitrogen in the air but maximum pressure and temperature as explained details
some liquid fuels contain nitrogen such as NH3, NC and by Zeldovich mechanism. It is found that at low load, the
HCN thus contribute to higher potential on producing formation of NOx is slightly decreased as pressure drop
more NOx [21]. It is acknowledge that this emission was increases while at part load; NOx is slightly increased as
highly depended on post-combustion gas temperature, pressure drop increases. The formation of NOx is clearly
duration of gas exposure to this high temperature related to the combustion behavior in combustion
combustion and the species in post-combustion gases chamber. Figure 6 shows that the ignition delay varies
which highly related to equivalent ratio, [22]. when the pressure drop increases. At low load, the
ignition delay is slightly increased promoted to increase
the premixed combustion thus reduces the exhaust NOx.

https://doi.org/10.24084/repqj07.504 792 RE&PQJ, Vol. 1, No.7, April 2009

The combustion of fuel occurred at low pressure in 1.8
combustion chamber as compared to part load. This (a)
1.6
condition has lead to lower peak flame temperatures as
1.4
well as post combustion mixing with cooler excess air
1.2

THC [g/kWh]
[24]. At part load, the function of AFR is significant to
the formations of NOx rather than ignition delay. The 1 RME
formation of exhaust emissions is strongly dependent on 0.8 ULSD
fuel distribution and the rate of change for fuel 0.6
distributions due to mixing process [1]. The NOx is 0.4
increased when the AFR decreases as discussed by many 0.2
authors [1, 24]. Many researchers agree that the increase
0
of boost pressure promoted to the lean combustions of
LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4
diesel engine and the rate of heat release is resemble to
Mode
the injection rate and becomes sharper and the quality of
combustion improves [24, 25]. Therefore, the increase of
pressure drop is proved to gives opposite results as the
boost pressure on engine emissions. 1.4

1.2 (b)
1

THC [g/kWh]
5 0.8 RME
4.5
(a) 0.6 ULSD
4
`
3.5 0.4
CO [g/kWh]

3
RME 0.2
2.5
ULSD
2 0
1.5 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4
1 Mode
0.5
0 Figure 11 Emissions of total hydrocarbon (a) low load, (b)
LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4 part load
Mode
Figure 11 shows the emissions of total hydrocarbon. It is
found that the combustions of ULSD produces higher
THC as compared to RME at all pressure drop and
3
engine loads. At low load, the formation of THC is not
(b) affected by the pressure drop. It is found that at high
2.5
load, the formation of THC for RME is level as pressure
2 drop increase. Meanwhile at part load, the HC is reduced
CO [g/kWh]

RME as pressure drop increases.

1.5
ULSD
1

0.5 6. Conclusion
0
PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4
The results show that the pressure drop in intake
manifold gives negative impact not only to the engine
Mode
efficiency and power density, but also in terms of engine-
out emissions. The effect of air intake pressure drop on
Figure 10 Emissions of carbon monoxide (a) low load, (b)
the engine performance and emissions of a V6 diesel
part load
engine has been investigated and the conclusions can be
summarized as follows.
Figure 10 shows the emissions of carbon monoxide from
the combustion of RME and ULSD at low load and part
1. The increase of pressure drop resulted to
load. It is found that the combustion of RME in a diesel
increase bsfc and reduces the engine efficiency
engine produces more CO as compared to B50 and
at low load and part load.
ULSD. Figure 10 also revealed that at low load, the
2. The exhaust emission of NOx is slightly
formation of CO is higher as compared to part load.
decreased at low load due to longer of ignition
delay. While at part load, the function of AFR is
significant to the formations of NOx rather than

https://doi.org/10.24084/repqj07.504 793 RE&PQJ, Vol. 1, No.7, April 2009

 ignition delay thus promoted to increase NOx as Report, EPA420-P-02-001. 2002, United States
pressure drop increase. Environmental Protection Agency.
3. The emission of CO and THC is slightly 12. Labeckas, G. and S. Slavinskas, The Effect of
reduced at part load but these emissions are Rapeseed Oil Methyl Ester on Direct Injection
slightly level at low load. Diesel Engine Performance and Exhaust
4. The effect of pressure drop is significantly Emissions. Energy Conversion and Management
affected the combustion and emissions of the 47 (2006) 1954-1967, 2006.
engine on both ULSD and RME. The trend of 13. Shahid, E.M. and Y. Jamal, A Review of
change is almost similar for RME as compared Biodiesel as Vehicular Fuel. Renewable and
to ULSD. However the rate of change is slightly Sustainable Energy Reviews 12 (2008) 542-552,
different due to different fuel properties. 2008.
14. Nwafor, O.M.I., Emission Characteristics of
Diesel Engine Operating on Rapeseed Methyl
7. Acknowledgement Ester. Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 119-129,
2004.
The authors want to thank to the Government of 15. Lois, E., Definition of Biodiesel. Fuel 86 (2007)
Malaysia for PhD. scholarship awarded to Mr Rizalman 1212-1213, 2007.
Mamat and Mr Nik Rosli Abdullah. The authors are 16. Nwafor, M.I. and G. Rice, Performance of
grateful to the Future Power Group members of Rapeseed Oil Blends in a Diesel Engine.
Birmingham University for cooperation in this study. Applied Energy, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 345-354,
1996, 1996.
17. Bozbas, K., Biodiesel as an Alternative Motor
Fuel: Production and Policies in the European
8. References Union. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 12 (2008) 542-552, 2008.
1. Heywood, J.B., Internal Combustion Engine. 18. Agarwal, A.K., Biofuels (Alcohol and Biodiesel)
1988, New York: McGraw Hill. Applications as Fuels for Internal Combustion
2. Lilly, L.C.R., Diesel Engine Reference Book. Engines. Progress in Energy and Combustion
1984, London: Butterworths. Science 33 (2007) 233-271, 2007.
3. Directive 2003/30/EC of the European 19. Tsolakis, A., et al., Engine Performance and
Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on Emissions of a Diesel Engine Operating on
the Promotion of the Use of Biofuels or Other Diesel-RME (Rapeseed Methyl Ester) Blends
Renewable Fuels for Transport. Official Journal with EGR (Eghaust Gas Recirculation). Energy
of the European Union L123/42, 2003. 32 (2007) 2072-2080, 2007.
4. Kreith, F. and D.Y. Goswami, Handbook of 20. The approximation of the laws of the Member
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2007, States relating to measures to be taken against
London: CRC Press. the emission of gaseous and particulate
5. European Commission. Promoting Biofuels in pollutants from compression ignition engines for
Europe -Securing a Cleaner Future for use in vehicles, and the emission of gaseous
Transport. Directorate-General for Energy and pollutants from positive ignition engines fuelled
Transport, 2004. with natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas for
6. G.P, H., S. Kallu, and M.C. McManus, use in vehicles and amending Council Directive
Development of Biofuels for the UK Automotive 88/77/EEC. Official Journal of the European
Market. Applied Energy, 2007. Union, 2000. Directive 1999/96/EC (2000)(L44:
7. Kawano, D., et al., Application of Biodiesel Fuel 1 - 155).
to Modern Diesel Engine. SAE Technical Paper 21. Ganesan, V., Internal Combustion Engines.
2006-01-0233, 2006. 2003, New Delhi: McGraw Hill.
8. Sharp, C.A., S.A. Howell, and J. Jobe, The 22. Keating, E.L., Applied Combustion. 2007,
Effect of Biodiesel Fuels on Transient Emissions London: CRC Press.
from Modern Diesel Engines, Part II 23. Agarwal, A.K., Biofuels (alcohols and
Unregulated Emissions and Chemical biodiesel) Applications as Fuels for Internal
Characterization. SAE Technical Journal 2000- Combustion Engines. Progress in Energy and
01-1968, 2000. Combustion Science, 2007. Vol. 33: p. 233-271.
9. Chuepeng, S., et al., A Study of Quantitative 24. Colban, W.F., P.C. Miles, and S. Oh, Effect of
Impact on Emissions of High Proportion RME- Intake Pressure on Performance and Emissions
Based Biodiesel Blends. SAE Technical Journal in an Automotive Diesel Engine Operating in
2007-01-0072, 2007. Low Temperature Combustion Regimes. SAE
10. Kawano, D., et al., Optimization of Engine Technical Paper 2007-01-4063, 2007.
System for Application of Biodiesel Fuel. SAE 25. Aoyagi, Y., et al., Low NOx Diesel Combustion
Technical Paper 2007-01-2028, 2007. Using of High Boosted, Cooled and Wide Range
11. A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts EGR System. 2006.
on Exhaust Emissions, in Draft Technical

https://doi.org/10.24084/repqj07.504 794 RE&PQJ, Vol. 1, No.7, April 2009