2t-S-1Ed-D-P

Performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine

fuelled with antioxidants dispersed biodiesel and its blend

Journal:

Environmental Progress

r
Fo

Manuscript ID
Wiley - Manuscript type:

Date Submitted by the Author:

Keywords:

n/a

A, PRABU

Biodiesel, Hydroxyl Radicals, Nitric Oxide, Pollution Prevention, Energy

Efficiency

er

Alternate Keywords:

Original Manuscript

Pe

Complete List of Authors:

Draft

ew

vi

Re
John Wiley & Sons

Page 1 of 21

Performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine fuelled with antioxidants

dispersed biodiesel and its blend
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the effect of antioxidants namely N-Phenyl-p-phenylenediamine
(DPD), N, N-Dimethyl-p-Phenylenediamine Dihydrochloride (NPPD) and Succinimide (SU)
as a fuel additive for Jatropha biodiesel. The antioxidant additives are added to biodiesel and
its blend separately at a dosage of each 1000 parts per million (ppm) and the experimental

r
Fo

investigations are conducted to study the effect of antioxidants dispersed biodiesel and
biodiesel blend on the performance and emission characteristics of the diesel engine operated
at a constant speed of 1500 rpm, constant injection timing of 215 bar and constant injection

Pe

of 26 bTDC (Before Top Dead Centre). The experimental results revealed that B20SND1000

er

test fuels established 7 % improvement in brake thermal efficiency and substantial percentage
reduction of nitric oxide (NO) emission by 22 % for B20SND1000 test fuel, when compared
to B100.

Re

Keywords: Jatropha biodiesel, Antioxidants, NO emission, ppm

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

John Wiley & Sons

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

INTRODUCTION
Present engines are fuelled by high quality fuel additives to meet the required fuel properties
and to protect both engine and the environment [1]. Near Future, renewable fuels with highly
efficient additives are awaited to have a more considerable role to protect the environment
and human without any negative influence on biodiversity. As a consequence, higher
emission of NO causes smog, ozone depletion and acid rains [2]. Among the high quality fuel
additives, antioxidant additives are used in fuels to minimize NO formation. Free radicals

r
Fo

(hydroperoxyl, hydroxyl, alkoxyl and peroxyl) that are formated during combustion
influenced the rate of oxidation reaction and NO formation. McCormick et al. [3] suggested
that, NO emission in biodiesel can be minimized by addition of antioxidants to the fuel.

Pe

Antioxidants inhibits and delays the oxidation process by donating hydrogen atom or an
electron to a radical derivative and minimizes the free radical formation by chain breaking

er

reactions [4] that are responsible for the formation of NO.

Re

Ryu [5] investigated the effect of antioxidant additives (tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ),

butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), propyl gallate (PrG), and

vi

tocopherol) at 500 ppm separately with biodiesel on the engine performance and emission

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 2 of 21

characteristics in a four cylinder, water cooled, indirect injection diesel engine and found
reduction in brake specific fuel consumption and exhaust emission for antioxidants dispersed
test fuels. Thomas et al. [6] achieved the reduction of brake specific fuel consumption in a
four cylinder turbocharged direct injection diesel engine by dosing antioxidants namely 3, 4,
5-tri hydroxyl benzoic acid (Propyl Gallate), 1, 2, 3 tri-hydroxy benzene (Pyrogallol) and 2tert butyl-4-methoxy phenol (Butylated Hydroxyanisole) of 1000 ppm separately in croton
megalocarpus biodiesel.

John Wiley & Sons

Page 3 of 21

Varatharajan et al. [4] carried out the performance and emission characteristics in a
computerized four stroke, water cooled single cylinder diesel engine by dispersing
antioxidants

such

as

phenylenediamine,

ethylenediamine,

a-tocopherol,

butylated

hydroxytoluene and ascorbic acid with Jatropha biodiesel at 0.005, 0.015, 0.025, 0.035 and
0.050 % volume separately and observed improvement in BSFC for antioxidant dispersed test
fuels due to the friction reduction quality of amines. In addition, they observed 43 %
reduction of NO emission for 0.025 % mass concentration phenylenediamine with Jatropha
biodiesel.

r
Fo

Varatharajan and Cheralathan [7] experimentally analyzed the reason for the reduction of NO
emission by the addition of antioxidants such as N, N-diphenyl-1,4-phenylenediamine

Pe

(DPPD) and N-phenyl-1,4-phenylenediamine (NPPD) with soybean biodiesel separately at

1000 & 2000 ppm respectively and found that reduction of NO emission for antioxidant

er

dispersed test fuels was mainly due to the suppression of peroxyl free radical formations. In

Re

addition they observed 9 % percentage reduction in NO emission with increment of HC by 10

% and CO by 12.5 % respectively. Later, Palash et al. [8] carried out an experimental

vi

investigation in a multi-cylinder, computerized radiator type cooling system, diesel engine by

dispersing 0.15 % volume of N, N-diphenyl-1,4- phenylenediamine in Jatropha diesel blends

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

and observed maximum percentage reduction of NO by 16 % with penalty of increased CO

and UBHC, due to the quenching of peroxyl and hydrogen peroxide radicals. In addition,
they observed reduction in brake thermal efficiency for antioxidants dispersed test fuels due
to its high density and viscosity of the fuel. Meanwhile, Rizwanul Fattah et al. [9] used two
synthetic antioxidants, 2 (3) -tertbutyl- 4-methoxyphenol (BHA) and 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4methylphenol (BHT) as additive in 20 % coconut methyl ester diesel blend separately at 2000
ppm in four cylinder diesel engine and observed 8 % reduction of NO emission with
improvement in brake specific fuel consumption by 1.7 %. Likewise Ileri and Kocar [10]

John Wiley & Sons

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

noticed 40 % reduction of NO emission by dispersing antioxidant additives such as butylated

hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ)
and 2-ethylhexyl nitrate (EHN) individually at concentrations of 0, 500, 750 and 1000 ppm in
20 % Canola oil diesel fuel.
Recently Prabu and Anand [11] studied the combined effect of antioxidants such as DPD,
NPPD and SU with Jatropha biodiesel in a single cylinder DI diesel engine and found
significant percentage reduction of NO emission by 10 %. Earlier studies highlights that,

r
Fo

antioxidant quenches the OH radicals, which are creditworthy for the formation of NO
emission. Whereas, the multiple antioxidants as additives in biodiesel blends are limited in
scientific indexes. So in order to experimentally encounter the effect of multiple antioxidants

Pe

as additives in biodiesel, an experimental investigation is conduced to investigate the

possibility of using multiple antioxidants (DPD), (NPPD) and (SU) as additive in Jatropha

er

biodiesel blend.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Re

Diesel (B0) and Jatropha biodiesel (B100) are used as material in this study.
such

as

N-Phenyl-p-phenylenediamine

(DPD),

ew

antioxidants

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 4 of 21

N,

Three

N-Dimethyl-p-

Phenylenediamine Dihydrochloride (NPPD) and Succinimide (SU) are selected as additives

for Jatropha biodiesel and its blend, whose specifications are listed in Table 1. A total of three
test fuels are prepared for conducting the study, denoted as BxSNDy (x means volume
fraction and y means ppm). The test fuels chosen are (a) 20 % Jatropha biodiesel with 80 %
diesel (B20), (b) 100% Jatropha biodiesel with 1000 ppm SU, 1000 ppm NPPD and 1000
ppm DPD (B100SND1000) and (c) 20% Jatropha biodiesel with 80% diesel, 1000 ppm SU,
1000 ppm NPPD and 1000 ppm DPD (B100SND1000). Blending of test antioxidants with
fuels are carried out by using a high speed mixer, blended at 1500 rpm for 30 minutes. A

John Wiley & Sons

Page 5 of 21

bomb calorimeter that follows the ASTM D240 standard is used to determine the calorific
value for the test fuels. The density of the test fuels is measured by using a digital density
meter that follows the ASTM D1298 standard and the kinematic viscosity for the test fuels is
determined by using a Saybolt Viscometer as per ASTM D88 standards. The
physicochemical properties of antioxidants dispersed test fuels are measured and presented in
Table 2.
Engine setup and measurements

r
Fo

The experiments are carried out on a single-cylinder, four stroke, air cooled, direct injection,
diesel engine whose technical specifications are listed in Table 3. The schematic layout of the
engine test rig is shown in Figure 1. The engine is experimented at constant speeds of 1500

Pe

rpm, constant injection timing of 215 bar and constant injection of 26 bTDC. All the test

er

datas are performed for three runs and the average of the three measurements is used to
represent the test result. A calibrated k-type chrome-alumel thermocouple is used to measure

Re

the exhaust gas temperature (EGT) at the immediate exhaust of the engine. The level of
pollutants (carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbon (UBHC), and nitric oxide (NO))

vi

for the B0, B100, B20, B100SND1000 and B20SND1000 are measured by using AVL Digas

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

444 exhaust gas analyzer and the level of smoke opacity is measured by using AVL 437
smoke meter.
Uncertainty analysis
In general, errors and uncertainties of data occurs in an experiments due to the selection of
working discipline, calibration, selection of instrument, observation, method of investigation
and environmental condition [12]. The uncertainties for the performance and emission
parameters such as BTE, CO, UBHC, NO and smoke opacity are determined as 1.5 %,
0.01 % vol, 1 ppm and 1 % respectively.

John Wiley & Sons

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The performance and emission characteristics results for a single cylinder DI diesel engine
fuelled by multiple antioxidants blended biodiesel and its blend are represented graphically
under brake mean effective pressure (bmep) in the following section.
Performance characteristics
The brake specific energy consumption (BSEC) for the antioxidants dispersed test fuels with

r
Fo

respect to bmep is shown in Figure 2. Due to the higher density and lower calorific value of
biodiesel, increase in BSEC is observed as 14.8 MJ/kWh, compared with B0 of 13 MJ/kWh
respectively. It is observed that B20SND1000, B20 and B100SND1000 test fuels produced 7,

Pe

6 and 5 % less BSEC than B100, respectively. The consequences of reduction in BSEC
obviously increased brake thermal efficiency (BTE) for the antioxidants dispersed test fuels.

er

The BTE for the antioxidant dispersed test fuels with respect to bmep is shown in Figure 3.
The maximum BTE values observed for the test fuels B20SND1000, B20 and B100SND1000

Re

are 30.5, 30.3 and 30 % respectively compared with B100 of 28.5 %. This improvement in
BTE is due to the friction reduction properties of the amines [4].
EMISSION CHARACTERISTICS
NO emission and EGT

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 6 of 21

The most harmful pollutant that should be controlled during the combustion phase is NO
emission. In biodiesel combustion, NO is formed mainly due to thermal and prompt
mechanism. The rich oxygen content of biodiesel increases the oxidation reaction in fuel-rich
zones during higher combustion temperature, resulting in increased formation of Thermal
NO. Prompt NO is eventually formed by the reaction of free radicals with nitrogen. It takes
place very early in the combustion process and is partly dependent on the fuel radical

John Wiley & Sons

Page 7 of 21

concentration (Increase in free radical concentration is proportional to NO emission). The NO

emission for the antioxidants dispersed test fuels with respect to bmep is shown in Figure 4.
As expected NO emission increases for B100 as 1390 ppm, compared to B0 of 1320 ppm. It
is observed that antioxidants dispersed test fuels shows a significant impact on NO reduction.
The observed percentage reduction of NO emissions for B20SND1000, B100SND1000 and
B20 test fuels are 22, 12 and 6 %, respectively, compared to B100 of 1390 ppm.
Simultaneous reduction in exhaust gas temperatures is observed for the antioxidants
dispersed test fuels as shown in Figure 5. Diminution in EGT observed for the B20SND1000,

r
Fo

B20 and B100SND1000 test fuels are 277, 321 and 307 C respectively, compared with B100
of 339 C. A similar reduction in NO emission phenomenon is reported [4, 7, 8, 10] by

Pe

dosing antioxidants with biodiesel.

CO and UBHC emission

er

The CO emission for the antioxidants dispersed test fuels with respect to bmep is shown in

Re

Figure 6. CO emission is produced when the conversion of CO to CO2 is downplayed due to

incomplete combustion [13]. The higher oxygen content of biodiesel promotes complete

vi

combustion; as a result lower CO emission is observed for B100 as 0.05 % vol compared

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

with B0 of 0.09 % vol. During combustion, peroxyl and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) radicals
formed successively are converted into hydroxyl radicals (OH), by absorbing heat from the
combustion chamber. Antioxidants scavenges the concentration of peroxyl and hydrogen
peroxide radicals and affects the CO conversion process by resulting in higher CO emission
for B100SND1000 by 20 %, 40 % lower CO emission for B20 and the same for
B20SND1000 test fuel when compared with B100. Increase in CO emissions for
B100SND1000 test fuels is due to scavenging of OH radicals by the antioxidant addition,
which acts as an oxidation inhibitor [14].

John Wiley & Sons

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

The UBHC emission for the antioxidants dispersed test fuels with respect to bmep is shown
in Figure 7. The rich oxygen content of biodiesel promotes the complete combustion, which
helps in reducing UBHC emission for B100 as 18 ppm compared to B0 of 25 ppm. The
UBHC emissions for B20 test fuel is 28 % lower and same for B20SND1000 and
B20SND1000 test fuels compared to B100 respectively. Antioxidants containing aromatic
ring with hydroxyl (OH) group donates hydrogen to the free radical which inhibits oxidation
process by affecting the conversion of CO to CO2 and HC to H2O.
Smoke Opacity

r
Fo

The smoke opacity for the antioxidants dispersed test fuels with respect to bmep is shown in
Figure 8. The rich oxygen molecule present in biodiesel, improved the combustion process by

Pe

resulting in lowered smoke opacity for B100 compared to B0. For B100SND1000 and

er

B20SND1000 test fuels, 5 and 3 % increase in smoke opacity are observed, whereas, 6 %
lower smoke opacity is observed for B20 test fuel compared with B100 of 37.6 %. Slight

Re

increase in smoke opacity is observed for the B20SND1000 and B100SND1000 test fuels due
to the free radical quenching character of antioxidant delaying the rate of oxidation [15].

ew

CONCLUSIONS

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 8 of 21

The incorporation of the antioxidants such as N-Phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (DPD), N, NDimethyl-p-Phenylenediamine Dihydrochloride (NPPD) and Succinimide (SU) with the
biodiesel and its blend significantly improved the performance and emission characteristics
of the diesel engine. The brake thermal efficiency and NO emission for the antioxidants
dispersed test fuels are substantially improved compared to biodiesel operation. Owing to the
combined effect of antioxidants dispersed test fuels, drastically reduction in the level of NO
emission by 22 % is observed with 7 % improvement in the brake thermal efficiency for
B20SND1000 test fuel when compared to that of B100.

John Wiley & Sons

Page 9 of 21

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work received financial and analytical support from the National Institute of
Technology, Tiruchirappalli.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Haycock, R.F., & Thatcher, R.G.F. (2004). Fuel Additives and the Environment, ATC
Paper (The Technical Committee of Petroleum Additive Manufacturers in Europe).

r
Fo

2. Fernando, S., Hall, C., & Jha, S. (2006). NOx reduction from biodiesel fuels. Energ
Fuel, 20, 37682.

3. McCormick, R.L., Williams, A., Ireland, J., Brimhall, M., & Hayes, R.R. (2006).

Pe

Effects of biodiesel blends on vehicle emissions, US National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL).

er

4. Varatharajan, K., Cheralathan, M., & Velraj, R. (2011). Mitigation of NOx emissions
from a Jatropha biodiesel fuelled DI diesel engine using antioxidant additives, Fuel,
90, 27215.

Re

5. Ryu, K. (2010). The characteristics of performance and exhaust emissions of a diesel

vi

engine using a biodiesel with antioxidants, Bioresource Technology, 101, 7882.

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

6. Thomas, T., Kivevele, Lukacs Kristof, Akos Bereczky, Makame, M., & Mbarawa.
(2011). Engine performance, exhaust emissions and combustion characteristics of a
CI engine fuelled with croton megalocarpus methyl ester with antioxidant, Fuel,
27822789.
7. Varatharajan, K., & Cheralathan, M. (2013). Effect of aromatic amine antioxidants on
NOx emissions from a soybean biodiesel powered DI diesel engine, Fuel Processing
Technology, 106, 526532.

John Wiley & Sons

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

8. Palash, S.M., Kalam, M.A., Masjuki, H.H., Arbab, M.I., Masum, B. M., & Sanjid, A.
(2014). Impacts of NOx reducing antioxidant additive on performance and emissions
of a multi-cylinder diesel engine fuelled with Jatropha biodiesel blends, Energy
Conversion and Management, 77, 577585.
9. Rizwanul Fattah, Hassan, I.M., Kalam, M. H., AbedinA, E., & Atabani, M.J. (2014).
Synthetic phenolic antioxidants to biodiesel: path toward NOx reduction of an
unmodified indirect injection diesel engine, Journal of Cleaner Production, 79, 8290.
10. Ileri, E., & Kocar, G. (2014). Experimental investigation of the effect of antioxidant

r
Fo

additives on NOx emissions of a diesel engine using biodiesel, Fuel, 125, 4449.
11. Prabu, A., & Anand, R.B. (2015). Inhibition of NO emission by adding antioxidant

Pe

mixture in Jatropha Biodiesel on the performance and emission characteristics of a

C.I. Engine, Frontiers in energy, DOI. 10.1007/s11708-015-0356-8.

er

12. Mani, M., & Nagarajan, G. (2009). Influence of injection timing on performance,
emission and combustion characteristics of a DI diesel engine running on waste
plastic oil, Energy, 34, 161723.

Re

13. Sanjid Ahmed, Masjuki Hj. Hassan, Md. Abul Kalam, Ashrafur Rahman, S.M.,

vi

Joynul Abedin, Md. & Ali Shahir. (2014). An experimental investigation of biodiesel

ew

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 10 of 21

production, characterization, engine performance, emission and noise of Brassica

juncea methyl ester and its blends, Journal of Cleaner Production, 79, 74-81
14. Ileri, E., & Kocar, G. (2013). Effects of antioxidant additives on engine performance
and exhaust emissions of a diesel engine fueled with canola oil methyl esterdiesel
blend, Energy Conversion and Management, 76, 145154.
15. Tang, H., Wang, A., Salley, S.O., & Simon, N.K.Y. (2008). The effect of natural and

synthetic antioxidants on the oxidative stability of biodiesel, Journal of the American

Oil Chemists Society, 85, 373 382.

John Wiley & Sons

Page 11 of 21

Table 1 Specification of test antioxidants

Antioxidants
N,N-Dimethyl pPhenylenediamine
Dihydrochloride

Specifications

N-Phenyl-pphenylenediamine

CAS Number

101-54-2

536-46-9

123-56-8

Chemical
Formula

C6H5NHC6H4NH2

(CH3)2NC6H4NH22HCl

C4H5NO2

184.24

209.12

99.09

Molecular
Weight

er

Pe

Chemical
Structure

r
Fo

ew

vi

Re

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

John Wiley & Sons

Succinimide

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Page 12 of 21

Table 2 Properties of test fuels

Fo

rP

Properties

Density @ 15 C (kg/m3)

Diesel B100 B20 B100SND1000 B20SND1000

ee

835

873

rR

843

877

845

Kinematic Viscosity @ 40 C ( cSt )

2.20

4.10

2.58

4.15

2.62

Calorific value ( MJ/kg)

42.3

39.5

ev

39.0

40.8

41.7

iew

John Wiley & Sons

Page 13 of 21

Table 3 Specification of diesel engine

Make

Kirloskar, India
Single cylinder, four stroke,

Type
air cooled, Direct injection engine
Bore Stroke

87.5 110 mm

r
Fo

Compression ratio

17.5:1

Swept volume

661 cm3

Combustion chamber

Open hemispherical

Spray hole diameter

0.25 mm

Cone angle

er

Pe

110

4.4 kW at 1500 rpm,

Rated output
{{{{{}}}}}

Injection timing

Re

26 btdc

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

John Wiley & Sons

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

r
Fo

Figure1 Schematic view of experimental setup

307x115mm (96 x 96 DPI)

er

Pe
ew

vi

Re

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 14 of 21

John Wiley & Sons

Page 15 of 21

r
Fo
er

Pe
Figure 2 Comparison of BSEC with bmep.
123x82mm (300 x 300 DPI)

ew

vi

Re

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

John Wiley & Sons

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

r
Fo
er

Pe
Re

Figure 3 Comparison of BTE with bmep.

123x100mm (300 x 300 DPI)

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 16 of 21

John Wiley & Sons

Page 17 of 21

r
Fo
er

Pe
Re

Figure 4 Comparison of NO with bmep.

123x96mm (300 x 300 DPI)

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

John Wiley & Sons

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

r
Fo
er

Pe
Re

Figure 5 Comparison of EGT with bmep.

123x98mm (300 x 300 DPI)

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 18 of 21

John Wiley & Sons

Page 19 of 21

r
Fo
er

Pe
Re

Figure 6 Comparison of CO with bmep.

124x99mm (300 x 300 DPI)

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

John Wiley & Sons

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

r
Fo
er

Pe
Re

Figure 7 Comparison of UBHC with bmep.

123x100mm (300 x 300 DPI)

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 20 of 21

John Wiley & Sons

Page 21 of 21

r
Fo
er

Pe
Re

Figure 8 Comparison of Smoke opacity with bmep.

123x101mm (300 x 300 DPI)

ew

vi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2t-S-1Ed-D-P

John Wiley & Sons