Fuel 157 (2015) 245254

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Using waste animal fat based biodieselsbioethanoldiesel fuel blends in

a DI diesel engine
Ertan Alptekin a,b, Mustafa Canakci a,b,, Ahmet Necati Ozsezen a,b, Ali Turkcan a,b, Huseyin Sanli b,c
a

Department of Automotive Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Kocaeli University, 41380 Izmit, Turkey
Alternative Fuels R&D Center, Kocaeli University, 41275 Izmit, Turkey
c
Golcuk Vocational High School, Kocaeli University, 41650 Golcuk, Turkey
b

h i g h l i g h t s
 The BSFC values of animal fat based biodiesels were higher than those of diesel fuel.
 Biodiesels showed higher MCP values than those of diesel fuel.
 Bioethanol blends showed retarded SOI timings compared with diesel fuel.
 Animal fat based biodiesels emitted lower CO and THC emissions than diesel fuel.
 Bioethanol fuel blends emitted lower CO2 emissions than B20 blends.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 22 October 2014
Received in revised form 13 March 2015
Accepted 28 April 2015
Available online 9 May 2015
Keywords:
Waste animal fat
Biodiesel
Bioethanol
Performance
Exhaust emissions
Diesel engine

a b s t r a c t
In this study, animal fat based biodiesels produced in the pilot plant were blended with certain amounts
of diesel fuel and bioethanol. Neat biodiesels, diesel fuel and the blends were tested in a direct injection
diesel engine and engine performance, combustion and exhaust emission characteristics were investigated. Engine tests were conducted at constant engine speed (1400 rpm) and four different engine loads
(150 Nm, 300 Nm, 450 Nm and 600 Nm). The engine tests showed that the brake specic fuel consumptions (BSFC) of biodiesels were about 16% higher while those of the blends containing 20% bioethanol
were about 15.7% higher than those of diesel fuel on average. The maximum cylinder gas pressures of
biodiesels were about 1.2% higher than those of diesel fuel on average. The start of combustion of biodiesels occurred at earlier crank angles compared to diesel fuel, while the start of combustion occurred at
later crank angles with increasing bioethanol amount in the fuel blends. According to brake specic emission results, biodiesels emitted lower carbon monoxide (CO) emissions but they emit higher carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions as compared to diesel fuel. THC emissions increased and
CO2 emissions reduced slightly for the blends containing bioethanol compared with B20 (20% biodiesel,
80% diesel fuel) on average.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In todays world, bioethanol and biodiesel are two of the most
preferred alternative fuels. Production and consumption of these
alternative fuels have been increased signicantly each passing
day. Bioethanol is a renewable fuel which can be derived from agricultural feedstock basically such as sugar beet, corn, wheat and
sugar cane. It can be produced from agricultural wastes as well.
Corresponding author at: Department of Automotive Engineering, Faculty of
Technology, Kocaeli University, 41380 Izmit, Turkey. Tel.: +90 262 3032202;
fax: +90 262 3032203.
E-mail addresses: mustafacanakci@hotmail.com,
canakci@kocaeli.edu.tr
(M. Canakci).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.04.067
0016-2361/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Biodiesel is another renewable fuel that can be produced from vegetable oils, animal fats and also from their wastes. Biodiesel is nontoxic, biodegradable and environmentally friendly diesel fuel.
When bioethanol and biodiesel are produced from agricultural
feedstocks and virgin vegetable oil, there will be a conict with
food production and this situation will cause an increase in the
food prices. Therefore, the feedstocks of these renewable fuels
should be agricultural wastes, waste vegetable oils or animal fats.
Bioethanol is mainly used in gasoline engines due to having
high octane number while biodiesel is an alternative to diesel fuel.
However, renewability of bioethanol has shifted the researchers to
use this fuel in diesel engines. As well known, viscosity of biodiesel
is higher than that of diesel fuel. In addition, biodiesels produced

246

E. Alptekin et al. / Fuel 157 (2015) 245254

from waste vegetable oils or animal fats may have higher viscosity
compared to those produced from virgin vegetable oils [1].
Bioethanol has some advantages such as higher oxygen content
and higher heat of evaporation which may reduce NOx emissions
in diesel engines [2] and has lower viscosity and distillation temperatures as well. One of the effective ways of using bioethanol
in diesel engines is mixing it with biodiesel and diesel fuel. Thus
higher viscosity of biodiesels may be lowered and will be approximate to that of diesel fuel. On the other hand, the disadvantages of
using ethanol in diesel engine such as low lubricity and cetane
number may be overcome by biodiesel addition to ethanoldiesel
fuel blends. However, there are limited studies about the investigation of usage of biodieselethanoldiesel fuel blends in the
literature. Yilmaz et al. [3] investigated diesel emissions of etha
nolbiodieseldiesel fuel blends. In that study, the biodiesel was
produced from waste cooking oil. They mixed ethanol with diesel
fuel (DF) and biodiesel both at low and high concentrations (3%,
5%, 15% and 25%) while DF and biodiesel amount were maintained
equal. The results showed that ethanol blends emitted higher CO
and lower NO emissions at low loads while there were not significant differences in CO and NO emissions at high loads when compared to DF. Labeckas et al. [4] tested various ethanolDF and
ethanolbiodiesel (rapeseed methyl ester) DF blends in a diesel
engine with in-line fuel injection pump. They found that ethanolDF blends had later injection timings than those of DF while
the biodieselDFethanol blend containing 5% biodiesel had earlier
injection timing. Maximum heat release rate (MHRR) increased
with increasing the ethanol content in the fuel blends. Lu et al.
[5] used biodiesel in a diesel engine with premixed ethanol by port
injection. MHRR and ignition delay (ID) increased, cylinder pressure decreased with the increase in the injected ethanol amount
to the intake port. Sayin and Canakci [6] worked on the engine performance and emissions of DFethanol blends containing 5%, 10%
and 15% ethanol. Brake specic fuel consumption (BSFC) increased
and CO emissions decreased with the increasing ethanol proportion in the DFethanol blends. He et al. [7] prepared DFethanol
blends of low and high ethanol concentration (10% and 30% ethanol) to test them in a diesel engine. THC emissions of ethanol
blends were higher than those of DF. In addition, they found that
THC emissions increased with the increasing ethanol amount in
the fuel blends.
As seen in the literature, there are almost no studies especially
about the engine tests of waste animal fat biodieselbioethanolDF
blends. Therefore, in this study, waste animal fat biodiesels such as
chicken fat and eshing oil biodiesels and their blends with DF and
bioethanol were used as test fuels in a direct injection diesel
engine and engine performance, combustion and exhaust emission
characteristics of these fuels were investigated.

2. Materials and methods

In this study, waste chicken fat and waste eshing oil based biodiesels produced in the pilot plant were used as test fuels. Detailed
production process and the potential of these fuels can be found in
the Ref. [8]. The fatty acid compositions of the oils and their

biodiesels are given in Table 1. The chemical formulas of the biodiesels were calculated from the average of chemical formula
and weight percent for each of the component esters determined
by gas chromatography (GC). Bioethanol obtained from
Pankobirlik Bioethanol Manufacturing Plant (Konya, Turkey) was
derived from the wastes originated from sugar production process
and DF was bought from a local petrol station. The fuel properties
of DF, bioethanol, biodiesels and their blends were given in Tables
2 and 3. The prepared test fuels are DF, bioethanol (E), eshing oil
biodiesel (FOB), chicken fat biodiesel (CFB), FOB20 (20% FOB, 80%
DF), CFB20 (20% CFB, 80% DF), FOBE5 (20% FOB, 75% DF, 5% E),
CFBE5 (20% CFB, 75% DF, 5% E), FOBE10 (20% FOB, 70% DF, 10%
E), CFBE10 (20% CFB, 70% DF, 10% E), FOBE20 (20% FOB, 60% DF,
20% E), CFBE20 (20% CFB, 60% DF, 20% E). The phase separations
of test fuels were checked two months ago before the engine tests.
All fuel blends were stored in glass beakers to observe the phase
separation. Signicant phase separation was not observed for rst
several days. However, after one week, there was a phase separation in the fuel blends especially containing ethanol. Therefore,
the test fuels were prepared daily and mixed before the each test.
The test fuels were characterized in the Alternative Fuels Research
and Development Center in Kocaeli University (AFRDC), Marmara
Research Center-The Scientic and Technological Research
Council of Turkey (MRC-TUBITAK) and Pankobirlik Bioethanol
Manufacturing Plant (PBMP). The test methods used to determine
the properties of the test fuels were given below (unless otherwise
stated, the tests were done in AFRDC);
Density (ASTM D4052), viscosity (ASTM D445), ash point
(ASTM D93), sulfur content (ASTM D2622), water content (EN
ISO 12937), iodine value (EN 14111), mono-, di- and triglyceride,
total-free glycerin (EN 14105 determined in MRC-TUBITAK),
methanol content (EN 14110), cold lter plug point (ASTM
D6371), acid value (AOCS Cd 3a-64), copper strip corrosion
(ASTM D130) and heat of combustion (ASTM D240), cetane number (ASTM D613 determined in MRC-TUBITAK), methanol content in ethanol (EN 13132 determined in PBMP), fatty acid
composition (IUPAC 2.301).
Engine tests were performed using a water-cooled,
turbocharged-intercooled direct injection diesel engine. Engine
specications were given in Table 4. Four different engine loads
(150 Nm, 300 Nm, 450 Nm and 600 Nm) and constant engine
speed (1400 rpm speed of maximum engine load) were selected
for the engine tests. There were not any modications on the diesel
engine during the engine tests. A schematic diagram of the engine
setup was shown in Fig. 1. The test engine was coupled to a
hydraulic dynamometer to provide brake load. A magnetic pickup
was xed over the engine ywheel gear to determine the crankshaft position. A water-cooled cylinder pressure sensor (Kistler
model 6061B) was mounted on the rst cylinder head to measure
the cylinder gas pressure. A pressure transducer (Kistler model
6005) was installed in the fuel line of the rst cylinder to obtain
the fuel line pressure. A charge amplier (Kistler model 5064A1)
was used to produce output voltages proportional to the charge
and then they were converted to digital signals. The cylinder gas
and fuel line pressure signals were recorded by a computer using
a digital device (Advantech PCI 1716 multifunctional data

Table 1
Fatty acid composition of eshing oil, chicken fat and their biodiesels.
Product

Fleshing oil
FOB
Chicken fat
CFB

Fatty acid composition (%)

14:0

14:1

15:0

16:0

16:1

17:0

17:1

18:0

18:1

18:2

18:3

20:1

20:4

21:0

3.1
3.1
0.5
0.5

1.4
1.4

0.4
0.4

26.0
26.2
19.8
19.4

6.5
6.1
3.8
3.6

0.9
0.9
0.4
0.4

0.9
0.9

11.4
11.3
6.1
6.1

45.8
44.8
34.6
32.2

2.5
3.5
30.9
32.8

0.3
0.3
2.9
2.9

0.3
0.4

0.4
0.6

0.3
0.3

247

E. Alptekin et al. / Fuel 157 (2015) 245254

Table 2
Fuel properties of the biodiesels, diesel fuel and bioethanol.
Property
Chemical Formula
Density (15 C)
Viscosity (40 C)
Flash point
Water content
Acid number
Monoglyceride
Diglyceride
Triglyceride
Free glycerin
Total glycerin
Copper strip corrosion (3 h, 50 C)
Higher heating value
Lower heating value
Cetane number
Methanol content
Iodine number
Sulfur content
Cold lter plugging point
a

Unit

DF

FOB

CFB

kg m3
mm2 s1
C
ppm
mg KOH g1
% (mass)
% (mass)
% (mass)
% (mass)
% (mass)
Degree of corrosivity
MJ kg1
MJ kg1

% (mass)
g I.100 g1
ppm
C

C14H25a

C2H5OH
793
1.2

163

No. 1
28.9
26.2

0.04

1.8

C18.2H35.1O2
876.7
4.7
168
410
0.28
0.06
0.02
0.20
0.01
0.05
No. 1
39.9
37.3
58.8
0.01
53.6
138.1
10

C18.6H34.9O2
889.7
5.3
169
440
0.43
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.008
0.03
No. 1
39.7
37.1
52.3
0.05
95.5
81.5
3

829
3.0
63
20

No. 1
45.9
43.2
56.8

8.7
15

Ref. [9].

Table 3
Some fuel properties of biodieselbioethanoldiesel fuel blends.
Fuel

Density
(15 C,
kg m3)

Viscosity
(40 C,
mm2 s1)

Lower heating
value
(MJ kg1)

Flash
point
(C)

Cetane
number

DF
FOB
FOB20
FOBE5
FOBE10
FOBE20
CFB
CFB20
CFBE5
CFBE10
CFBE20

829.0
876.7
837.8
835.2
833.1
829.1
889.7
840.2
837.7
835.5
831.6

3.0
4.7
3.2
2.9
2.6
2.3
5.3
3.3
2.9
2.7
2.4

43.2
37.3
42.0
41.2
40.3
38.6
37.1
42.0
41.2
40.3
38.6

63
168
66
<25
<25
<25
169
66
<25
<25
<25

56.8
58.8
57.2
54.8
52.3
47.4
52.3
55.9
53.5
51.0
46.1

Ref. [7]. The injector opening pressure specied by the manufacturer is 197 bar which were used in the ignition delay calculation.
In this study, the exhaust emissions were measured by AVL
SESAM FTIR emission device. Table 5 shows the specications of
the exhaust emission device. Fuel consumption was determined
by weighing fuel used for a period of time on an electronic scale.
The mathematical formula used for the brake specic fuel consumption (BSFC) calculation was given below:

be

_f
m
 3600
Pe

where be is the fuel specic fuel consumption, mf is the consumed

fuel amount (g s1) and Pe is the engine power.
3. Results and discussion

acquisition board). The cylinder gas pressure data of 50 engine

cycles were collected with a resolution of 0.25 crank angle. The
cylinder gas pressure data was analyzed with using single-zone
thermodynamic model. The heat-release analysis was based on
the changes of the cylinder gas pressure and cylinder volume during the cycle. The formula given below was used for all test fuels.

Qt

k
dV
1
dP
P

V
Q wall
k  1 dh k  1 dh

where k is the ratio of specic heats which was taken depending

upon cylinder temperature, h is crank angle, P is cylinder gas pressure, V is cylinder volume, Qwall is heat transfer from the cylinder
wall. The details for heat release calculations can be found the

Table 4
Specications of the test engine.
Engine

6 liter, Ford Cargo

Type

Direct injection, turbocharged, intercooled,

four stroke, water cooled
6
104.8114.9 mm
16.4:1
In-line type
197 bar
136 kW2400 rpm
650 Nm1400 rpm

Number of cylinder
BoreStroke
Compression ratio
Injection pump
Injector opening pressure
Maximum power
Maximum brake torque

All fuels were tested at different engine conditions for three

times and the results were averaged. It is indicated that low load
means 150 Nm, medium loads mean 300 and 450 Nm, and high
load means 600 Nm engine test conditions. Tables 2 and 3 show
the fuel properties of the test fuels. As seen in the tables, biodiesels
have lower heating values than that of DF and heating value
decreases with increasing bioethanol amount in the blends.
Similarly, viscosity of the bioethanol blends decreases with
increasing bioethanol amount. Detailed comparison of the fuel
properties can be found in the Ref. [8].
3.1. Brake specic fuel consumption
BSFC is an important parameter to compare the performance of
different fuels on an engine. Fig. 2 shows the BSFC results of the
test fuels. As seen in the gure, the BSFC values decreased with
increasing the engine load for all test fuels. The BSFC values of biodiesels and their blends with DF were higher than those of DF. As
the bioethanol amount increased in the blends, the BSFC values
increased as well. Zhu et al. [2], Gr et al. [10] and Nadir et al.
[11] presented also higher BSFC values for biodiesels, biodiesel
DF or bioethanol blends with DF as compared to DF. The increase
in BSFC was expected since the lower heating value of biodiesel
fuels and bioethanol blends were lower than those of DF as given
in Table 3. The lower heating values of FOB, CFB and bioethanol
were about 13.7%, 14.1% and 39.4% lower than that of diesel fuel,
respectively. This means that more fuel amount is required for

248

E. Alptekin et al. / Fuel 157 (2015) 245254

Fig. 1. The experimental setup.

FOB, CFB and bioethanol blends than that of DF. On the other hand,
the BSFC values of the biodiesels were close to each other.
Therefore, the results for the blends of FOB and CFB were close
to each other as well.

Table 5
Specications of exhaust emission device.
Parameter

Unit

Accuracy

HC

ppm

CO
CO2
NOx

ppm
%
ppm

<2 of measured value (10100% of measuring

range) or 61% of full scale, whichever is smaller
Better than 2% of measured value
Better than 2% of measured value
Better than 2% of measured value

Nm
rpm
g

2%
1
1

m3

3%

Measurements
Load monitoring
Speed measuring
Fuel
consumption
(mass)
Air consumption
(volume)
Temperature

3.2. Fuel injection line pressure and combustion results

The crank angle (CA) at which the fuel injection line pressure
reached the injector nozzle opening pressure was taken as the start
of fuel injection (SOI). The SOI results were derived from the fuel
injection line pressure data. The SOI timings were summarized in
Table 6a. As seen in the table, each fuel had different injection line
pressure values. The SOI timings of biodiesels and B20 (20%
biodiesel-80% DF) blends were earlier than those of DF for all test
conditions. Similar results can be found in the literature.
Monyem [12] determined that the SOI timings of biodiesels were
about 2 CA earlier than that of DF at full load. As well-known from

320

DF
FOB
FOB20
FOBE5
FOBE10
FOBE20

300

280

260

240

220

200

180

Brake specific fuel consumption (g/kWh)

Brake specific fuel consumption (g/kWh)

320

DF
CFB
CFB20
CFBE5
CFBE10
CFBE20

300

280

260

240

220

200

180
150

300

450

600

150

300

Engine load (Nm)

Fig. 2. Comparison of brake specic fuel consumption results.

450

Engine load (Nm)

600

249

E. Alptekin et al. / Fuel 157 (2015) 245254

Table 6a
The obtained start of combustion and start of injection results.
Fuel

DF
FOB
FOB20
FOBE5
FOBE10
FOBE20
CFB
CFB20
CFBE5
CFBE10
CFBE20

Start of combustion (BTDC, CA)

Start of injection (BTDC, CA)

150 Nm

300 Nm

450 Nm

600 Nm

150 Nm

300 Nm

450 Nm

600 Nm

6.50
7.75
7.25
6.00
5.50
4.75
7.75
7.50
6.00
5.50
4.50

7.25
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
5.25
7.75
7.50
7.00
6.50
5.25

7.50
8.25
7.75
7.25
7.00
6.75
8.00
7.75
7.25
7.00
6.50

7.75
9.25
8.00
7.50
7.25
7.00
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.25
7.00

11.25
12.50
11.25
9.00
9.25
9.25
13.25
12.50
9.25
9.00
8.75

11.75
12.50
11.75
10.00
9.50
9.25
13.00
12.50
10.00
9.50
9.25

11.25
12.25
11.75
11.00
10.75
11.00
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.75
10.75

11.25
12.25
12.00
11.00
11.00
10.75
13.00
12.50
11.00
10.50
10.25

the literature [13], the bulk modulus of biodiesel is higher than

that of diesel fuel. Higher bulk modulus shows lower compressibility of the fuels. It may be said that earlier SOI values of the biodiesels compared with diesel fuel caused from lower compressibility
of the biodiesels. The SOI timings of FOB were about 0.75 CA later
than those of CFB. This means that CFB is less compressible than
FOB. Higher viscosity of CFB as compared to FBO may be the reason
of earlier injection. It is clear from Table 6a that the fuel injection
timing was retarded with increasing bioethanol amount in the fuel
blend. DF is less compressible than ethanol namely it has higher
bulk modulus values. This property causes retarding in the fuel
injection timing for bioethanol blends. Labeckas et al. [4] showed
similar results for ethanolDF blends. They found that the injection
timings of E15 (15% ethanol-85% DF) were about 1 CA later than
those of DF on average at different engine speeds. The blends of
FOB and CFB showed almost same results of SOI. On the other
hand, the SOI timings of bioethanol blends were advanced up-to
2 CA by the increment of engine load.
The cylinder pressure and heat release rate results were shown
in Fig. 3 for all test fuels. As seen in the gure, maximum cylinder
gas pressure (MCP) increased with increasing engine load for the
neat fuels and the blends. MCP values of the biodiesels were higher
than those of DF generally while MCP values of B20 fuel blends
were close to those of DF. The pressure results of bioethanol blends
showed that their MCP values were mostly lower than those of
biodiesels and DF. Heat release rate results presented that
maximum heat release rate (MHRR) increased with increasing
bioethanol amount in the fuel blends. The MHRR values for DF
were higher than those of biodiesels while the MHRR values of
the B20 blends were similar to those of DF. The starts of increasing
in heat release were different for the blends however ends of the
heat release were close to each other. Labeckas et al. [4], Shehata
[14], and Hulwan and Joshi [15] presented similar results in their
studies.
The injection and combustion characteristics of the test fuels
were summarized in Tables 6a and 6b. When the results are investigated in terms of engine load, it is seen that start of combustion
(SOC derived from heat release rate prole) values were
advanced with increasing engine load for all test fuels. The results
showed that SOC of biodiesels occurred at earlier crank angles
when compared to DF. The cetane number of DF is lower than that
of FOB while it was higher than that of CFB. However, SOI of CFB
was earlier than that of DF. This situation causes earlier SOC results
for CFB compared to DF although lower cetane number of CFB.
Combustion results showed that FOB started to burn earlier than
CFB due to higher cetane number of FOB although it was injected
later than CFB. The SOC timings were retarded with increasing
bioethanol amount in the fuel blends. The cetane number of
bioethanol was much lower than that of DF and neat biodiesels.
This property tended to retarded SOC timings for bioethanol blends

when compared to DF, biodiesel and their blends. In addition, the

later SOI timings of bioethanol blends were another factor for
retarded SOC timings. Identical results were also mentioned in
the literature [5,15].
The ignition delay (ID) is dened as the time between SOI and
SOC. ID values of the DF, neat biodiesels and B20 blends decreased
with increasing engine load. However, this tendency was different
for the bioethanol blends due to differences in SOI timings. ID values were increased with increasing engine load and bioethanol
amount in the blends at low engine loads. The results showed that
the ID values of DF were shorter than those of CFB. Earlier SOI timings (about 2 CA) of CFB caused longer ID although SOC values of
CFB were earlier when compared to DF. The ID mainly depends on
cetane number because the cetane number of a fuel shows the tendency of that to self-ignite. It is expected that higher cetane number of FOB provides shorter ID when compared to DF. However,
there were not signicant differences among the ID values of
FOB and DF. These results indicated that the SOC was directly
related with SOI timing and cetane number of the test fuel.
Combustion duration (CD) of the test fuels increased with
increasing the engine load for all test conditions. The biodiesels
had longer CD values when compared to DF. The bioethanol blends
showed longer CD results than those of B20 fuels. As stated above,
the end of heat release of the test fuels were close to each other for
the same engine conditions. Therefore, SOC of the fuels were a
dominant factor for CD. There were small differences in CD values
of the test fuels.
3.3. Engine emissions
The exhaust emissions measured during the tests were carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), total hydrocarbon (THC)
and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). All emissions results were converted
to the units of g/kWh, known as brake specic basis [16].
3.3.1. CO emissions
As seen in Fig. 4, CO emissions decreased with increasing the
engine load from 150 Nm to 300 Nm. However, CO emissions
increased with increasing the engine load to higher values. As well
known from the literature [17,18], the CO emissions increase especially for fuel-rich mixtures. More fuel was needed for higher
engine loads and thus richer airfuel mixture leaded to more CO
emissions.
CO emissions of biodiesels were lower than those of DF for all
test conditions. One of the main reasons of this decrease in biodiesels CO emissions was their oxygen content. FOB and CFB contain
about 11.2% and 11% oxygen on mass based, respectively. CO emissions were also lowered by using B20 fuels compared with DF.
Identical results were also given in the literature [19,20].
Maximum decreases in CO emissions were about 23% and 17%

0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40

0.30

Heat release rate (kJ/ CA)

0.35

0.25

0.20
0.15
3

0.10
0.05
0.00
-5

10

15

20

25

0.35
0.30
0.25

0.20
0.15
3

0.10
0.05
0.00

30

-15

-10

-5

0.50
0.45

0.40
0.35

0.30
0.25

0.20
0.15
0.10

0.05
0.00
5

10

15

20

25

0.35

0.25
0.20

0.15
4

0.10
3

0.05
0.00

0.35
5

0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10

0.05
0.00
-10

-5

15

20

25

0.45
0.40
0.35

0.25
0.20

0.15
4

0.10
3

0.05
0.00
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

0.30
0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
15

20

25

30

10

DF
CFB
CFB20
CFBE5
CFBE10
CFBE20

600 Nm
9

0.35
0.30
0.25

0.20

0.35

Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

30

0.30

-15

Heat release rate (kJ/ CA)

Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

Crank angle ( CA)

25

30

DF
FOB
FOB20
FOBE5
FOBE10
FOBE20

10

20

600 Nm

15

Crank angle ( CA)

10

10

DF
CFB
CFB20
CFBE5
CFBE10
CFBE20

-5

450 Nm

Crank angle ( CA)

-10

0.45

0.40

0.30

-15

0.50

Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

0.45

10

0.55

0.40

-15

Heat release rate (kJ/ CA)

Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

0.60

30

30

DF
FOB
FOB20
FOBE5
FOBE10
FOBE20

-5

25

Crank angle ( CA)

450 Nm

-10

20

DF
CFB
CFB20
CFBE5
CFBE10
CFBE20

-15

15

300 Nm

Crank angle ( CA)

9

10

0.55

Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

0.60

Heat release rate (kJ/ CA)

Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

DF
FOB
FOB20
FOBE5
FOBE10
FOBE20

-5

0.45

Crank angle ( CA)

300 Nm

-10

0.50

0.40

-15

0.55

Crank angle ( CA)

8

0.60

Heat release rate (kJ/ CA)

-10

DF
CFB
CFB20
CFBE5
CFBE10
CFBE20

150 Nm

Heat release rate (kJ/ CA)

-15

0.60

Heat release rate (kJ/ CA)

DF
FOB
FOB20
FOBE5
FOBE10
FOBE20

150 Nm

Heat release rate (kJ/ CA)

Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

E. Alptekin et al. / Fuel 157 (2015) 245254

Cylinder gas pressure (MPa)

250

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
-15

-10

-5

10

15
o

Crank angle ( CA)

Fig. 3. Comparison of cylinder pressures and heat release rates.

20

25

30

251

E. Alptekin et al. / Fuel 157 (2015) 245254

Table 6b
The obtained ignition delay and total combustion duration results.
Fuel

Ignition delay (CA)

DF
FOB
FOB20
FOBE5
FOBE10
FOBE20
CFB
CFB20
CFBE5
CFBE10
CFBE20

Combustion duration (CA)

150 Nm

300 Nm

450 Nm

600 Nm

150 Nm

300 Nm

450 Nm

600 Nm

4.75
4.75
4.00
3.00
3.75
4.50
5.50
5.00
3.25
3.50
4.25

4.50
4.50
4.25
3.00
3.00
4.00
5.25
5.00
3.00
3.00
4.00

3.75
4.00
4.00
3.75
3.75
4.25
5.00
4.25
3.75
3.75
4.25

3.50
3.00
4.00
3.50
3.75
3.75
4.50
4.50
3.50
3.25
3.25

72.50
75.25
74.25
73.25
72.50
71.75
75.00
74.25
73.25
72.75
71.50

74.75
75.25
74.50
74.00
73.50
72.25
74.75
74.75
74.00
73.50
72.25

110.25
113.25
113.00
111.50
112.50
111.50
113.50
113.00
109.75
111.75
109.00

112.75
113.75
112.25
112.25
111.75
111.75
113.50
113.00
112.00
111.75
111.75

10

10

DF
FOB
FOB20
FOBE5
FOBE10
FOBE20

CO emission (g/kWh)

8
7

DF
CFB
CFB20
CFBE5
CFBE10
CFBE20

9
8

CO emission (g/kWh)

6
5
4
3

7
6
5
4
3

1
0

0
150

300

450

600

150

Engine load (Nm)

300

450

600

Engine load (Nm)

Fig. 4. Comparison of CO emissions.

for FOB and CFB compared with DF, respectively. Maximum engine
load of the test engine is 650 Nm and 600 Nm was selected for this
study to compare the test fuels under the same test conditions. In
these conditions, CO emissions of FOB and CFB fuels were about
21% and 12% lower than that of DF. Similarly, CO emissions of
B20 blends of FOB and CFB fuels decreased about 10% and 11%
compared with the result of DF.
In the fuel blends, it should be remembered that biodiesel content was constant (20%) and bioethanol amount was increased
while decreasing DF amount. Namely, B20 fuels were taken as
the reference fuel for the bioethanol blends. CO emissions
increased slightly at 150 Nm and 300 Nm engine test conditions
while CO emissions decreased slightly at 450 Nm and 600 Nm
engine test conditions when compared to B20 blends with increasing bioethanol amount in the fuel blends. Di et al. [21] reported
that CO emissions increased at low loads while CO emissions
decreased at high loads with the addition of ethanol to ethanol
DF blends. In addition, similar results were given by Rakopoulos
et al. [22] and He et al. [7]. Higher cylinder pressure and temperature at high loads compared with low loads provide better combustion and thus lower CO emissions for the bioethanol blends
[21]. In addition, bioethanol fuel contains about 35% oxygen and
lower carbon amount in its structure. These properties may cause
to decrease in CO emissions for bioethanol blends when compared
to B20 blends. Especially, CO emissions decreased signicantly at
high loads with using FOBE20 and CFBE20 fuel blends. CO emissions decreased about 46% and 41% for FOBE20 and CFBE20 at
600 Nm engine condition by comparison with DF, respectively.

3.3.2. CO2 emissions

Main components of exhaust emissions built up by burning
hydrocarbon fuels are CO2 emissions. Fig. 5 shows the CO2 emissions as a function of engine load at same engine speed for all test
fuels. It is seen in the gure that CO2 emissions decreased with
increasing engine load for all test fuels. The CO2 emissions of biodiesel fuels were slightly higher than those of DF on average.
This may be due to better combustion for biodiesels and their high
carbon content in their structure. When compared to DF, CO2 emissions of FBO, CFB, FOB20 and CFB20 fuels increased by 1.1%, 2.5%,
0.9% and 0.1% on average, respectively. According to results, there
were almost no differences in CO2 emissions of biodiesels and DF.
General trend was consistent with the study prepared by the
researchers [20,23].
The CO2 emissions of bioethanol blends were lower than those
of B20 test fuels for all test conditions. Randazzo and Sodre [24]
and Ferreira et al. [25] presented similar results by adding ethanol
to biodieselDF blends. At 600 Nm engine conditions, CO2 emissions decreased about 5.8% and 7.1% for FOBE20 and CFBE20 compared with DF. The reason of decrease in CO2 emissions is the low
C/H ratio of bioethanol [7]. It was found that CO2 emissions, one of
the most important greenhouse gases, can be reduced with using
bioethanol as a blend with DF.
3.3.3. THC emissions
The emissions of hydrocarbons (HC) are resulted from
unburned fuel in the exhaust emissions. The HC emissions are
divided into two categories which are total hydrocarbon (THC)

252

E. Alptekin et al. / Fuel 157 (2015) 245254

500

500

CO2 emission (g/kWh)

450

400

350

DF
CFB
CFB20
CFBE5
CFBE10
CFBE20

450

CO2 emission (g/kWh)

DF
FOB
FOB20
FOBE5
FOBE10
FOBE20

300

400

350

300

250

250
150

300

450

150

600

Engine load (Nm)

300

450

600

Engine load (Nm)

Fig. 5. Comparison of CO2 emissions.

and non-methane hydrocarbons [17,18]. Fig. 6 shows the comparison of TCH emissions of the test fuels. The results showed that
brake specic THC emissions decreased with increasing the engine
load.
Biodiesel fuels showed different trends in brake specic THC
emissions compared with DF. The brake specic THC emissions
of FOB were about 2.3% lower while the brake specic THC emissions of CFB fuels were about 9.2% higher than those of DF on average. Conversion of the emissions from the units of ppm to the units
of brake specic basis (g/kWh) especially affects the THC emissions
results. Before the conversion of emissions, THC emissions of CFB
were lower than those of DF for all test conditions. However,
higher carbon amount and fuel consumption caused low increases
in brake specic THC emissions for CFB compared with DF.
Similarly, conversion of emissions caused different change for
B20 blends. The brake specic THC emissions of B20 blends were
lower than their biodiesels and DF. The brake specic THC emissions of FOB20 and CFB20 were about 21.5% and 14.1% lower than
those of DF on average.
Increasing bioethanol concentration in the fuel blends did not
affect the brake specic THC emissions signicantly. The brake
specic THC emissions of bioethanol blends were close to B20
blends; however, there was a decrease for B20 blends when compared to bioethanol blends especially at higher engine loads.

Cooling effect and latent heat of vaporization of ethanol tends to

slow the vaporization and mixing of fuel and air, this results leaner
and incomplete combustion and higher THC emissions [7,26].

3.3.4. NOx emissions

During the combustion process, oxygen and nitrogen reacts
with each other at high temperatures and this reaction causes
NOx emissions. Main part of NOx emissions consists of NO emissions while NO2 emissions are the small part of NOx emissions.
The rest trace amount of NOx emissions are composed of other oxygennitrogen combinations. The emissions of NOx emissions are
mainly due to oxygen in air. However, some diesel fuels may have
trace amount of nitrogen molecules in their structure but the nitrogen content in the fuel have little effect on NOx emissions. The
emissions of NOx depend on cylinder temperature, pressure, air
fuel ratio and combustion duration. In addition, some fuel properties such as viscosity and bulk modulus also affect the NOx emissions [7,13,17,18,2731]. Humidity has an important effect on
NOx emissions. An increase in air humidity causes a reduction in
NOx emissions [32]. Therefore, humidity values were measured
to do humidity correction during all engine tests. The oxides of
nitrogen were calculated as assured in the Ref. [33] according to
humidity measurement results.

10

10

THC emission (g/kWh)

8
7
6
5
4
3

DF
CFB
CFB20
CFBE5
CFBE10
CFBE20

9
8

THC emission (g/kWh)

DF
FOB
FOB20
FOBE5
FOBE10
FOBE20

7
6
5
4
3

1
0

150

300

450

600

150

Engine load (Nm)

300

450

Engine load (Nm)

Fig. 6. Comparison of THC emissions.

600

253

E. Alptekin et al. / Fuel 157 (2015) 245254

12

12

NOx emission (g/kWh)

11
10
9
8
7

DF
CFB
CFB20
CFBE5
CFBE10
CFBE20

11
10

NOx emission (g/kWh)

DF
FOB
FOB20
FOBE5
FOBE10
FOBE20

9
8
7

5
4

4
150

300

450

600

150

Engine load (Nm)

300

450

600

Engine load (Nm)

Fig. 7. Comparison of NOx emissions.

Fig. 7 presents the NOx emissions of the test fuels. The brake
specic emissions of NOx decreased with increasing engine load
generally. Biodiesel emitted higher NOx emissions when compared
to DF. The maximum increase in NOx emissions for FOB and CFB are
15.2% and 16.0% with regard to DF results, respectively. Yilmaz and
Sanchez [34] also found higher NOx emissions results with using
biodiesel compared with DF. The reason of higher NOx emissions
may be the oxygen content of biodiesels. Moreover, it is clearly
seen in Table 6a that biodiesels have earlier start of fuel injection
timings and higher cylinder pressures than those of DF generally.
These parameters may be other reasons for the increase in NOx
emissions. On the other hand, the NOx emissions of CFB were
slightly higher than those of FOB. This may be also due to earlier
fuel injection timing for CFB. When using B20 blends, the NOx
emissions also increased with regard to the results of DF on
average.
As stated above, B20 test fuels were considered as reference
fuels for bioethanol blends. The results showed that bioethanol
blends emitted lower brake specic NOx emissions with reference
to B20 blends on average at lower engine loads. However, the
brake specic NOx emissions were close to each other for B20
and bioethanol blends at higher engine loads. Increasing bioethanol amount in the blends did not affect the brake specic NOx
emissions signicantly. Xingcai et al. [35] showed that the NOx
emissions decreased at low engine load while the NOx emissions
increased at high loads when the engine was fuelled with DFethanol blends compared with DF. Di et al. [21] obtained similar results
for DFethanol blends. The results from this study showed that the
trend in NOx emissions changed with respect to engine load.
Cooling effect and latent heat of vaporization properties of bioethanol caused lower NOx emissions at low engine loads [7,20,35].

4. Conclusion
The main aim of this paper is to present the performance, combustion and exhaust emission characteristics of animal fat based
biodiesels, DF and their blends with bioethanol in a direct injection
diesel engine. According to the performance and combustion
results, the BSFC values decreased from low to high engine loads.
The BSFC increased with increasing bioethanol concentration in
the fuel blend. The MCP values of all test fuels increased with
increasing engine load. Biodiesels generally showed higher MCP
values than those of DF. The MCP values of bioethanol blends were
mostly lower when compared to neat biodiesels and DF. The SOI

timings of neat biodiesels and their B20 blends with DF were earlier than those of DF while bioethanol blends showed retarded SOI
timings. The combustion started at earlier crank angles for neat
biodiesels with regard to DF. The SOC values retarded with increasing bioethanol amount in the blends due to lower cetane number.
CD values were impressed by the SOC values rather than the end of
combustion. The exhaust emissions results showed that FBO and
CFB emitted lower CO and higher CO2 and NOx emissions when
compared to DF. When compared to B20 blends, bioethanol blends
had different trends in CO and NOx emissions with respect engine
load. Bioethanol fuel blends provided lower CO2 emissions than
those of B20 blends. The results showed that biodieselbioethanol
fuel blends performed well and animal fat based biodiesels and
bioethanol as a fuel blend with DF could be used in diesel engines.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the grants from Scientic Research
Foundation of Kocaeli University and Izmit Municipality (Project
Nos. 2008/APP002 and 2011/37). The authors would like to thank
to Istanbul Leather Organized Industrial Zone, Beypili Chicken
Slaughterhouse (Bolu) and Pankobirlik Bioethanol Manufacturing
Plant (Konya) Managements for supplying the feedstocks and
bioethanol.
References
[1] Knothe G, Steidley KR. A comparison of used cooking oils: a very
heterogeneous
feedstock
for
biodiesel.
Bioresource
Technol
2009;100:5796801.
[2] Zhu L, Cheung CS, Zhang WG, Huang Z. Emissions characteristics of a diesel
engine operating on biodiesel and biodiesel blended with ethanol and
methanol. Sci Total Environ 2010;408:91421.
[3] Yilmaz N, Vigil FM, Donaldson AB, Darabseh T. Investigation of CI engine
emissions in biodieselethanoldiesel as a function of ethanol concentration.
Fuel 2014;115:7903.
[4] Labeckas G, Slavinskas S, Mazeika M. The effect of ethanoldieselbiodiesel
blends on combustion, performance and emissions of a direct injection diesel
engine. Energ Convers Manage 2014;79:698720.
[5] Lu X, Ma J, Ji L, Huang Z. Simultaneous reduction of NOx emission and smoke
opacity of biodieselfueled engines by port injection of ethanol. Fuel
2008;87:128996.
[6] Sayin C, Canakci M. Effects of injection timing on the engine performance and
exhaust emissions of a dual-fuel diesel engine. Energ Convers Manage
2009;50:20313.
[7] He BQ, Shuaia SJ, Wang JX, He H. The effect of ethanol blended diesel fuels on
emissions from a diesel engine. Atmos Environ 2003;37:496571.
[8] Alptekin E, Canakci M, Sanli H. Biodiesel production from vegetable oil and
waste animal fats in a pilot plant. Waste Manage 2014;34:214654.

254

E. Alptekin et al. / Fuel 157 (2015) 245254

[9] Ozsezen AN, Canakci M. Determination of performance and combustion

characteristics of a diesel engine fueled with canola and waste palm oil
methyl esters. Energ Convers Manage 2011;52:10816.
[10] Gr M, Koca A, Can , nar C, Sahin F. Biodiesel production from waste
chicken fat based sources and evaluation with Mg based additive in a diesel
engine. Renew Energ 2010;35:63743.
[11] Yilmaz N, Vigil FM, Benalil K, Davis SM, Calva A. Effect of biodieselbutanol
fuel blends on emissions and performance characteristics of a diesel engine.
Fuel 2014;135:4650.
[12] Monyem A. The effect of biodiesel oxidation on engine performance and
emissions, PhD Dissertation, University of Iowa State, 1998.
[13] Tat ME, Van Gerpen JH, Soylu S, Canakci M, Monyem A, Wormley S. The speed
of sound and isentropic bulk modulus of biodiesel at 21 C from atmospheric
pressure to 35 MPa. J Am Oil Chem Soc 2000;77:2859.
[14] Shehata MS. Emissions, performance and cylinder pressure of diesel engine
fuelled by biodiesel fuel. Fuel 2013;112:51322.
[15] Hulwan DB, Joshi SV. Performance emission and combustion characteristic of a
multicylinder DI diesel engine running on dieselethanolbiodiesel blends of
high ethanol content. Appl Energ 2011;88:504255.
[16] Canakci M. Production of biodiesel from feedstocks with high free fatty acids
and its effect on diesel engine performance and emissions, PhD Dissertation,
Iowa State University, 2001.
[17] Pulkrabek WW. Engineering fundamentals of the internal combustion engine.
2nd ed. USA: Prentice Hall; 2004.
[18] Ferguson CR, Kirkpatrick AT. Internal combustion engines: applied thermo
sciences. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2006.
[19] Gr M, Artukoglu BD, Keskin A, Koca A. Biodiesel production from waste
animal fat and improvement of its characteristics by synthesized nickel and
magnesium additive. Energ Convers Manage 2009;50:498502.
[20] Canakci M, Van Gerpen JH. Comparison of engine performance and emissions
for petroleum diesel fuel, yellow grease biodiesel and soybean oil biodiesel. T
ASABE 2003;46:93744.
[21] Di Y, Cheung CS, Huang Z. Comparison of the effect of biodieseldiesel and
ethanoldiesel on the gaseous emission of a direct-injection diesel engine.
Atmos Environ 2009;43:272130.

[22] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Kakaras EC, Giakoumis EG. Effects of ethanol
diesel fuel blends on the performance and exhaust emissions of heavy duty DI
diesel engine. Energ Convers Manage 2008;49:315562.
[23] Chauhan BS, Kumar N, Cho HM. A study on the performance and emission of a
diesel engine fueled with jatropha biodiesel oil and its blends. Energy
2012;37:61622.
[24] Randazzo ML, Sodre JR. Exhaust emissions from a diesel powered vehicle
fuelled by soybean biodiesel blends (B3B20) with ethanol as an additive
(B20E2B20E5). Fuel 2011;90:98103.
[25] Ferreira VP, Martins J, Torres EA, Pepe IM, De Souza JMSR. Performance and
emissions analysis of additional ethanol injection on a diesel engine powered
with a blend of dieselbiodiesel. Energ Sustain Dev 2013;17:64957.
[26] Yilmaz N. Comparative analysis of biodieselethanoldiesel and biodiesel
methanoldiesel blends in a diesel engine. Energy 2012;40:2103.
[27] Bittle JA, Knight BM, Jacobs TJ. Interesting behavior of biodiesel ignition delay
and combustion duration. Energ Fuel 2010;24:416677.
[28] Jha SK, Fernando S, Filip SDT. Flame temperature analysis of biodiesel blends
and components. Fuel 2008;87:19828.
[29] Canakci M. Combustion characteristics of a turbocharged DI compression
ignition engine fuelled with petroleum diesel fuels and biodiesel. Bioresource
Technol 2007;98:116775.
[30] Monyem A, Van Gerpen JH, Canakci M. The effect of timing and oxidation on
emissions from biodiesel fueled engines. T ASABE 2001;44:3542.
[31] Xingcai L, Jianguang Y, Wugao Z, Zhen H. Effect of cetane number improver on
heat release rate and emissions of high speed diesel engine fueled with
ethanoldiesel blend fuel. Fuel 2004;83:201320.
[32] Ambrosio S, Finesso R, Spessa E. Calculation of mass emissions, oxygen mass
fraction and thermal capacity of the inducted charge in SI and diesel engines
from exhaust and intake gas analysis. Fuel 2011;90:15266.
[33] SAE Handbook, vol. 1. Warrendale: SAE; 2001. p. 13046.
[34] Yilmaz N, Sanchez TM. Analysis of operating a diesel engine on biodiesel
ethanol and biodieselmethanol blends. Energy 2012;46:1269.
[35] Xingcai L, Zhen H, Wugao Z, Degang L. The inuence of ethanol additives on
the performance and combustion characteristics of diesel engines. Combust
Sci Technol 2004;176:130929.