Energy 47 (2012) 116e124

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Performance, emission and combustion improvements in a direct injection diesel

engine using cashew nut shell oil as fuel with camphor oil blending
G. Kasiraman a, *, B. Nagalingam b, M. Balakrishnan c
a

Department of Mechanical Engineering, SRM University, Kattankulathur 603203, Tamil Nadu, India
Department of Automobile Engineering, SRM University, Kattankulathur 603203, Tamil Nadu, India
c
Department of Aerospace Engineering, SRM University, Kattankulathur 603203, Tamil Nadu, India
b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 1 October 2011
Received in revised form
7 September 2012
Accepted 8 September 2012
Available online 2 October 2012

The usage of neat cashew nut shell oil (CSNO) as a fuel in direct injection diesel engine suffers from the
problems of incomplete combustion and low brake thermal efciency due to high viscosity. To overcome
this problem, the CSNO was blended with camphor oil (CMPRO) which is less viscous and burns readily,
in various proportions by volume. These blends were tested in a single cylinder 1500 rpm, 5.2 kW, direct
injection diesel engine tted with eddy current dynamometer. The performance, emission and
combustion characteristics were studied at various loads on the engine at a constant speed of 1500 rpm
and compared with neat CSNO and diesel fuel operations. Among the blends 30% camphor oil blend with
CSNO (CMPRO 30), shows good performance on par with diesel fuel operation with respect to brake
thermal efciency and heat release rate at full load. The brake thermal efciency of CMPRO 30 is 29.1%
compared to base diesel engine brake thermal efciency of 30.14%. The CMPRO 30 emits 1040 ppm of NO,
while diesel emits 1068 ppm. The neat CSNO emits 983 ppm of NO. The smoke emissions are 4.22, 3.91,
and 3.64 Bosch Smoke Unit for CSNO, CMPRO 30 and diesel, respectively.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Cashew nut shell oil
Camphor oil
Blending
Alternate fuels
Diesel engine

1. Introduction
Vegetable oils, a major source of renewable energy, are
considered as a promise to the worlds thirst for energy. Being
a source of green energy, these oils make them a potential alternate
for diesel fuel. There are many vegetable oils identied by the
researchers, which could be used as engine fuels.
In the last two decades, extensive research was carried out in
using various vegetable oils such as jatropa oil [1], karanja oil [2],
rubber seed oil [3], cotton seed oil [4], coconut oil [5] in diesel
engines using different techniques, namely preheating [6], transesterication [4], blending with orange oil [1], blending with
methanol [1], blending with ethanol [7], and blending with diethyl
ether [8]. Senthil kumar et al. [1] compared the different methods
of using jatropha oil as fuel in a diesel engine for improved
performance. They reported a maximum brake thermal efciency
of 28.5% for jatropha oil and 30% methanol blend and 28.3% for
jatropha oil and 30% orange oil blend. A reduction in smoke level of
0.4 BSU was reported for methanol blend over neat jatropha and
0.2 BSU reduction for jatropha orange oil blend. Bajpai et al. [2]
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 44 27453901; fax: 91 44 27453903.
E-mail addresses: kasiraman.g@ktr.srmuniv.ac.in, gkasiraman@gmail.com
(G. Kasiraman).
0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.09.022

investigated with a blend of karanja oil and diesel and reported

that NOx emission reduced by 4% at full load for 20% blend of karanja oil. Geo et al. [3] reported the improvement in performance of
rubber seed oil fuel for diesel engine with port injection of diethyl
ether (DEE). They observed that the brake thermal efciency
improved from 26.5% for neat rubber seed oil to 28.5% with a DEE
injection rate of 200 g/h at full load. The smoke emission reduced
from 6.1 to 4 BSU with DEE injection. Martin et al. [4] observed
improvements in performance and emission of the engine when
operated with esteried cotton seed oil. They reported that the
brake thermal efciency improved from 28% for neat cotton seed oil
to 30.4% with the ethyl ester of cotton seed oil and a reduction in
smoke emission to 3.7 BSU for ethyl ester of cotton seed oil from
3.9 BSU for neat cotton seed oil. Nazar et al. [5] investigated the use
of coconut oil as the fuel in a diesel engine. They observed that the
brake thermal efciency with pure coconut oil was 32% while its
methyl ester operation and pure diesel at full load showed 33.2%
and 34%, respectively. The corresponding smoke levels were 2.5, 1.9
and 3.1 BSU.
Hazar and Aydin [6] employed preheating of raw rapeseed oil
and tested the engine with diesel and rapeseed oil blend. They
observed that the preheating of oil to 100
C reduced the brake
specic energy consumption by 5.14% for diesel, 7.25% for rapeseed
oil 20% blend and 5.18% for rapeseed oil 50% blend and increased

G. Kasiraman et al. / Energy 47 (2012) 116e124

Nomenclature
BSU
bTDC
CA
CCI
CMPRO
CO
CO2
CSNO
EGT
NO
ppm
Y

Bosch smoke unit

before top dead centre
crank angle
calculated cetane index
camphor oil blend
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
cashew nut shell oil
exhaust gas temperature
nitric oxide
parts per million
total percentage uncertainty

NOx emission by 19%, 18%, and 15%, respectively. Rakopoulos et al.

[7] studied the heat release rate and emission of a variable speed
Hydra engine using three blends of ethanolediesel fuel. They reported a heat release rate of 47 J/deg rpm for 15% ethanol blend
with diesel at a brake mean effective pressure (bmep) of 5.37 bar
and 2000 rpm whereas diesel fuel had a heat release rate of 42 J/deg
at the same bmep and rpm. The NOx emission of 15% ethanol blend
is 1150 ppm and 1220 ppm for diesel fuel. The smoke density of
diesel is 140 mg/m3 compared to 15% ethanol blends emission of
80 mg/m3. Rakopoulos et al. [8] studied the performance and
emission in a direct injection hydra diesel engine fueled with
diethyl ether e diesel blends. They reported a peak heat release rate
of 38 J/deg for diesel fuel and 39 J/deg for 16% diethyl ether blend in
diesel at the peak load of 5.37 bar bmep. They also reported an
increase in ignition delay with an increase in percentage of diethyl
ether in the blend and a decrease in premixed combustion phase.
The smoke opacity is highest at peak load in all blends. At 25%
diethyl ether in the blend, the smoke opacity is 25% Hartridge,
whereas for pure diesel it is 35% Hartridge. NOx emission of
1000 ppm is reported at peak load operation of 25% dee blend,
whereas diesel fuel emits 1250 ppm of NOx at the same load. Karabektas and Hosoz [9] conducted experiments with isobutanol and
diesel blends. They reported reductions in CO emission of 3.2% and
11.3% for isobutanol 10 blend and isobutanol 20 blend, respectively
at full load conditions in the speed range of 1200e2800 rpm.
Respective reductions in NOx emission of 4.9 and 13.9% were also
reported for the above blends. Purushothaman and Nagarajan
[10] investigated orange oil as an engine fuel and reported 31.7%
brake thermal efciency for neat orange oil at full load whereas
diesel had 29.3% of brake thermal efciency; smoke level increased
by 0.09 BSU for the diesel operation.
Rakopoulos et al. [11] investigated the emissions during acceleration of a turbocharged 177 kW, 5958 cc, variable speed Mercedes
Benz OM 366 LA diesel engine operated with 25% n-butanol-diesel
and 30% biodiesel e diesel blends. They reported an increase in
peak NO concentration by 36.2% for n-butanol blends and 50.6% for
biodiesel blends when compared to diesel fuel operation. Arpa et al.
[12] studied the effects of blends formed by turpentine and Gasoline Like Fuel (GLF) obtained by pyrolitic distillation from waste
lubricating oil, on the performance and emission of variable speed
70 kW, 1297 cc, gasoline engine. They reported that the brake
thermal efciency of the engine peaks at 2500 rpm for all fuels
tested. It is 39% for 30% turpentine in the blend whereas for pure
GLF it is 36% at same rpm. The NOx emission is 2300 ppm for 30%
turpentine blend and 1750 ppm for pure GLF. The HC emission
peaks at 3500 rpm with an emission of 160 ppm for 30% turpentine
blend whereas it is 110 ppm for GLF. Mani et al. [13] studied the
effect of using waste plastic oil and diesel fuel blends in a 4.4 kW,

[
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
X11
Y

117

increase in value
uncertainty of fuel consumption
uncertainty of brake power
uncertainty of air consumption
uncertainty of NO emission
uncertainty of HC emission
uncertainty of CO emission
uncertainty of smoke emission
uncertainty of pressure measurement
uncertainty of speed measurement
uncertainty of CO2 measurement
uncertainty of temperature measurement
decrease in value

1500 rpm, Kirloskar engine. They reported that a 10% blend of

waste plastic oil had the brake thermal efciency of 28.2% whereas
the diesel fuel operation had 28%. The ignition delay is found to be
8.4
for neat waste plastic oil operation whereas for diesel fuel it is
7.2
of crank travel. Also the smoke emission is higher for neat
plastic oil, 5.6 BSU when compared to 3.78 BSU for diesel fuel.
Tsolakis et al. [14] studied the performance and emission of 773 cc,
8.6 kW diesel engine operating on diesel e rapeseed methyl ester
blends with Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR). They reported that
50% methyl ester e diesel blend has 780 ppm of NOx emission
without EGR, 600 ppm of NOx emission with 10% EGR and 400 ppm
with 20% EGR. Similar trend is observed for 20% methyl ester blend
and 100% methyl ester operation also. Saravanan et al. [15] studied
the combustion characteristics of a 4.4 kW diesel engine fueled
with 20% crude rice bran oil methyl ester and diesel blend. They
reported a heat release rate of 90 J/deg CA for diesel at rated load
and 53 J/deg CA for 20% rice bran methyl ester blend with diesel.
Also, the ignition delay is found to be 12.9
for 20% rice bran methyl
ester blend and 14.54
for diesel fuel.
Azam [16] et al. have studied the cashew nut shell oil belonging
to botanical plant family of Anacardiaceae occidantale. Theory reported a cetane number of 52, Iodine value of 92.6 and a Saponication number of 204, which showed the biodiesel qualities of the
oil.
Mallikappa et al. [17] studied about using transesteried cardonal as diesel engine fuel and reported CO emission of 0.08% for
20% blend of biodiesel with diesel at maximum output. The cardonal was obtained from cashew nut shell oil by pyrolysis. They
reported that 20% blend of cardonal may be used in CI engines
without any modications. Velmurugan and Loganathan [18]
studied the performance of cashew nut shell oil and diesel
blends. They reported that performance of B20 blend was nearly
closer to diesel operation.
India is the largest producer and processor of cashews (Anacardium occidentale) in the world. In India, cashew cultivation
covers a total area of about 0.77 million hectares of land, with an
annual production of over 0.5 million metric tonnes of raw cashew
nuts. The world production of cashew nut kernel was 907,000
metric tonnes in 1998. The cashew nut shell liquid is reported to be
15e20% by weight of the unseparated nut in Africa and 25e30% by
weight in India. Considering the shell weight is about 50% of the
weight of the nut-in-shell, the potential of cashew nut shell oil is
about 450,000 metric tonnes per year. The natural cashew nut shell
oil contains 80.9% of anacardic acid and 10e15% cardol and small
amount of polymeric substances as reported by Patel et al. [19].
They studied the extraction of cashew nut shell oil using super
critical carbon dioxide. They observed that at low extraction pressure the extract contains mainly cardol. At 200 bar and 333 K, the

118

G. Kasiraman et al. / Energy 47 (2012) 116e124

extract had 86% of cardol and it reduced to 63% for 300 bar, 333 K.
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry name of
anacardic acid is 2-hydroxy-6-[(8Z,11Z)-pentadeca-8,11,14-trienyl]
benzoic acid. The chemical formula is C22H30O3 and the molar mass
is 342.4718 g/mol [19].
The earlier studies on cashew nut shell oil have not reported the
combustion characteristics in detail. Also the cashew nut shell oil
and camphor oil have not been so far investigated in detail in
a diesel engine. The present study was taken up to investigate the
use of cashew nut shell oil and camphor oil in a diesel engine. The
cashew nut shell oil is highly viscous with a viscosity of 55.3 cST at
40
C with a caloric value of 35,800 kJ/kg (refer Table 1).
The camphor oil is found in wood of the camphor laurel Cinnammomum camphora which is a large evergreen tree found in Asia
(particularly in Borneo and Taiwan) and also of Dryobalanops aromatica, a giant of the Bornean forests. It is available from some
other related trees in the laurel family, notably Ocotea usambarensis. The molecular formula is C10H16O. Its chemical name is 1.7.7trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-one. It has a molar mass of
152.23 g/mol. The camphor readily ignites and burns without
producing any residue. The viscosity of camphor oil is 1.9 cST, which
is far less than that of CSNO (refer Table 1). Hence it is expected to
improve the combustion of CSNO.
In the present work, the engine tests were conducted in a single
cylinder four stroke diesel engine at a constant speed of 1500 rpm
with variable load (refer Table 2 for engine details) to study the
performance, emission and combustion characteristics of neat
CSNO, CMPRO 10 (90% CSNO and 10% camphor oil), CMPRO 20 (80%
CSNO and 20% camphor oil), CMPRO 30 (70% CSNO and 30%
camphor oil) and diesel fuel to identify the optimum blend for an
improved performance.
2. Test fuels

Table 2
Engine specications.
Make & model
Engine type

Bore (mm)
Stroke (mm)
Compression ratio
Rated power @1500 rpm (kW)
Injection pressure (bar)
Injection timing (
CA)

Kirloskar TV1
Single cylinder,
four stroke, water
cooled, direct injection,
constant speed engine
87.5
110
17.5:1
5.2
200
23
bTDC

injected directly into the cylinder in which the bowl in the piston
crown serve as the combustion chamber) was used for this experimental study (refer Table 2 for engine details). The engine cylinder
was tted with a piezo electric transducer for sensing in cylinder
pressure. A top dead centre (the crank position at which the piston
comes to rest when the cylinder volume is minimum) pulse pick up
was tted to sense the crank angle and an eddy current dynamometer was tted to the engine to apply load and measure the
power output of the engine at various loads. The high speed data
acquisition system was used to record the pressure crank angle
data. The air, diesel consumption measurements were obtained
from pressure transmitter interfaced instruments. A specialized
software was interfaced with the engine with the help of suitable
hardware so that the sensors and transducers provided the
required input to the software for calculation of performance
parameters. The CO, NO, and HC emissions were measured by AVL
ve gas analyzer at various loads on the engine. The smoke emission was measured by Bosch smoke meter.
4. Test procedure

The blends of CSNO and camphor oil were prepared in following

proportions on volume basis. 90% CSNO and 10% camphor oil blend
(CMPRO 10), 80% CSNO and 20% camphor oil blend (CMPRO 20) and
70% CSNO and 30% camphor oil blend (CMPRO 30) were prepared.
Before and after each blending, fuel properties were examined in
accordance with the standards of the Bureau of Indian Standards
(BIS) 15607 (2005). Table 1 presents the fuel properties of all the
fuels tested.
CCI is the calculated cetane index. The cetane index is an
approximation to cetane number computed from the empirical
correlation given in Colin R. Ferguson [20]. The index is useful
because it is cheaper to obtain than to measure experimentally
actual cetane number.
3. Experimental setup
The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. A single cylinder four
stroke water cooled direct injection diesel engine (the fuel is
Table 1
Properties of cashew nut shell oil, camphor oil blends & diesel fuel.
Property

Diesel

Density @ 15
C
(g cm3)
Kinematic viscosity
@ 40
C in cST
Flash point
C
Higher caloric
value in MJ/kg
Cetane
number/CCI [14]

0.84

CSNO
0.9581

Camphor CMPRO
oil
10
0.8942

0.9551

5. Error analysis

CMPRO
20

CMPRO
30

0.9361

0.9444

4.59

55.3

1.9

49.35

33.59

21.9

50
42.5

234
35.8

50
38.2

83
35.9

62
36.3

56
37.5

33

32

35

35

45e55

The engine was warmed up before starting the experiment and

then the engine outlet water temperature was maintained constant
by controlling the cooling water ow rate. Diesel, neat CSNO and
three blends of CSNO with camphor oil (CMPRO 10, 20, 30) were
used as test fuels in a DI diesel engine with variable load conditions
at a constant engine speed of 1500 rpm. For each operating
condition of engine load, the specic fuel consumption, engine
power output, exhaust emissions, and crank angleecylinder pressure were obtained. The cylinder pressure e crank angle data were
averaged out for 100 combustion cycles. All experimental
measurements were repeated many times and averaged for
improved test result accuracy and dependability. The brake thermal
efciency, brake specic energy consumption, and volumetric
efciency were calculated for each load by the software installed in
the set up. The heat release rate, ignition delay, maximum rate of
pressure rise and combustion duration were calculated from
pressure crank angle data. All the emission parameters were
measured using exhaust gas analyzer and smoke meter.

The experimental uncertainty may be taken as the possible

value the error may have. The uncertainties in the experiments may
arise from instrument type, calibration, and observation.
Suppose a set of measurements is made and these measurements are used to calculate some desired result of the experiments.
We wish to estimate the uncertainty in the calculated result on the
basis of uncertainties in the primary experiments. The result R is
a given function of the independent variables x1, x2, x3, . xn. Thus
R R(x1, x2, x3, ., xn). Let WR be the uncertainty in the result and

G. Kasiraman et al. / Energy 47 (2012) 116e124

119

Fig. 1. Experimental setup.

w1, w2, w3, ., wn be the uncertainties in the independent variables.

Then the uncertainty in the result is given by

WR

vR=vx1 w1 2 vR=vx2 w2 2 .. vR=vxn 2

o1=2

The percentage uncertainty of various parameters like load,

speed, fuel consumption, air consumption were calculated by the
above mentioned method [21] is given in the Table 3. The uncertainties in performance, combustion and emission parameters were
calculated by the following method. The uncertainty in brake
thermal efciency was calculated using the uncertainties of brake
power and fuel consumption.

X12 X22

1=2


1=2
0:52 0:52 12
1:23%

6. Results and discussion

6.1. Performance characteristics
6.1.1. Brake thermal efciency
The variation of brake thermal efciency is shown in Fig. 2. The
brake thermal efciency is the ratio of brake power output to heat
input rate. At rated output, the brake thermal efciency of the
diesel engine with neat CSNO operation is 23.1% whereas it is
30.14% for diesel and 29.1% for CMPRO 30. This is due to the fact that
high viscosity of neat CSNO results in poor atomization leading to
improper mixing and poor combustion. By blending camphor oil
with cashew nut shell oil, the viscosity is lowered. This leads to
improved atomization, vaporisation, ignition and combustion
characteristics. This in turn render high brake thermal efciency at
peak loads as shown in Fig. 2.

Table 3
List of instruments and their range, accuracy and percentage uncertainties.
Instrument

Type & manufacturer

Range

Accuracy

Percentage
uncertainty

Fuel ow
measurement

Differential pressure
transmitter
Yogokawa Japan
Load cellestrain gauge,
Sensotronics Sanmar
Pressure
transmitter wika
AVL exhaust gas
analyser, Austria
-do-do-doBosch
PCB Peizotronics
Kubler Germany
NI USB-6210 bus
powered M series
RTD PT100 type k
thermo couple

0e500 mm of
water column

1 mm of
water column

0e50 kg

0.1 kg

0.5

200 mm of
water column
0e5000 ppm

1 mm of
water column
10%

0e20,000 ppm
0e10%
0e20%
0e10
0e110 bar
0e2000 rpm

10 ppm
0.03%
0.5%
0.1
0.5 bar
10 rpm

0.1
0.3
1
1
1
0.5

0e1200
C for
EG, 0e100
C
for water

1
C

Load sensor
Air ow
measurement
NO
HC
CO
CO2
Smoke meter
Piezo sensor
Speed measuring unit
High speed data
acquisition system
Temperature sensors

0.5

120

G. Kasiraman et al. / Energy 47 (2012) 116e124

Fig. 2. Variation of brake thermal efciency with load.

6.1.2. Brake specic energy consumption

Fig. 3 shows the variation of brake specic energy consumption
with load. The energy consumed by the engine to produce 1 kW of
power in 1 h time is called brake specic energy consumption. The
brake specic energy consumption for CSNO is 15.72 MJ/kWh,
whereas it is 12.9 MJ/kWh for CMPRO 30 blend. It is 11.9 MJ/kWh
for diesel fuel. The energy consumption is highest for CSNO due to
its poor combustion. As seen in the Fig. 3, the presence of camphor
oil in the blend reduces the energy consumption due to easy mixing
and better burning.

Fig. 4. Variation of volumetric efciency with load.

viscosity. Due to incomplete combustion of the injected fuel and

part of the combustion extending into the exhaust stroke, there is
an increase in exhaust temperature with neat CSNO. The maximum
exhaust temperature at peak load is 716 K for neat CSNO and 665 K
for diesel. By blending camphor oil with cashew nut shell oil,
viscosity, atomization and vaporization are improved leading to
better combustion. As the camphor oil concentration increases
with CSNO blend, there is a reduction in exhaust temperature. With
CMPRO 30, the exhaust temperature at peak load is 686 K.

6.2. Emission characteristics

6.1.3. Volumetric efciency
The variation of volumetric efciency with load is depicted in
Fig. 4. The volumetric efciency is the ratio of actual mass of air
taken inside the cylinder to the theoretical mass of air. Neat CSNO
operation has a volumetric efciency of 76.9% at maximum output,
whereas the CMPRO 30 blend has the volumetric efciency 80%,
closer to diesel fuel operation of 81.8%. In the case of neat CSNO or
its blends during engine operation, the fresh air mixes with higher
temperature of residual exhaust gas inside the cylinder and
expands, which results in lower volumetric efciency.

6.2.1. NO emissions
Fig. 6 shows the variation of NO emissions at various loads on the
engine for the fuels used. It is observed that NO emission for neat
CSNO operation is lower than that of diesel because of lower heat
release rate and combustion temperature. With blending of CMPRO
with CSNO the combustion improves. Hence the heat release rate
and combustion temperature increases. This results in higher NO
emission. At maximum output, NO emission for neat CSNO is
983 ppm compared to 1068 ppm for diesel. A blend of CMPRO 30
results in 1040 ppm NO emission at the same operating point.

6.1.4. Exhaust gas temperature

Fig. 5 shows the variation of exhaust gas temperature with loads
for the fuels used. The exhaust temperature is very high with neat
CSNO due to slow combustion as a result of poor volatility and high

6.2.2. Carbon monoxide emissions

The CO emissions are higher for neat CSNO than its blends and
diesel, due to poor and slow combustion of CSNO. Normally, CO

Fig. 3. Variation of brake specic energy consumption with load.

Fig. 5. Variation of exhaust gas temperature with load.

G. Kasiraman et al. / Energy 47 (2012) 116e124

121

Fig. 6. Variation of NO emissions with load.

Fig. 8. Variation of carbon dioxide emissions with load.

emission of CI engine is low due to lean mixture operation. It is an

intermediate product in the combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel, so
its emission results from incomplete combustion. Emission of CO
depends on the air fuel ratio. Incomplete combustion invariably
produces higher CO emissions and increases nearly linearly with
the brake mean effective pressure. The presence of camphor oil in
the blend enhances the combustion process, which is reected in
the reduction of CO emissions. At peak load neat CSNO emits 0.38%
of CO, whereas diesel fuel operation has 0.27% of CO in the exhaust
gas. The CMPRO 30 blend has the minimum CO emissions of all the
tested blends and it is 0.3% as shown in Fig. 7.
6.2.3. Carbon dioxide emissions
The variation of CO2 emissions with load is shown in Fig. 8. It is
observed that the CO2 emission increases with load. The amount of
carbon dioxide in the exhaust gas is a measure of combustion.
Under ideal conditions any hydrocarbon fuel should give CO2 and
water only on combustion. It is observed that at peak load the neat
CSNO operation gives out 2.74% of CO2 emission and diesel emits
6.8% of CO2. The CMPRO 30 blend has slightly higher CO2 % emission
of 8.8% due to combustion improvements.

blend enhances the combustion and hence, the HC emission

reduces. The neat CSNO has 143 ppm of unburned HC. The CMPRO
30 emits 132 ppm of HC while diesel fuel has HC emission of
130 ppm at peak load.
6.2.5. Smoke emission
The variation of smoke emissions with load is shown in Fig. 10.
Smoke is nothing but the exhaust gas stream in which the solid soot
particles are suspended. The long chain aromatics of the CSNO
create high level of smoke due to poor combustion. However the
smoke emission reduces with the blends. The CMPRO blend emits
less smoke than neat CSNO. At peak output, smoke intensity for
CSNO operation is 4.22 BSU whereas it is 3.64 BSU for diesel fuel
operation. Smoke emission reduces to 3.91 BSU for CMPRO 30
blend due to improved combustion as result of better fuel properties of blend such as low viscosity and better ignitability of the
blends.
6.3. Combustion characteristics

6.2.4. Hydrocarbon emissions

The variation of HC emission with load is depicted in Fig. 9. Due
to poor combustion of CSNO the HC emissions are on the higher
side. The amount of unburned hydrocarbon in the exhaust is an
index of combustion inefciency. Addition of camphor oil in the

6.3.1. Heat release rate

The heat release rates for neat CSNO, CMPRO 30 blend and diesel
fuel are shown in Fig. 11. The peak heat release rate for neat CSNO is
62.67 J/deg CA, for CMPRO 30 blend it is 79.64 J/deg CA and for
diesel fuel operation it is 79.9 J/deg CA. The heat release rates of

Fig. 7. Variation of carbon monoxide emissions with load.

Fig. 9. Variation of hydrocarbon emissions with load.

122

G. Kasiraman et al. / Energy 47 (2012) 116e124

Fig. 10. Variation of smoke emissions with load.

diesel fuel and CMPRO 30 blend are comparable. The camphor oil
has improved the heat release rate of CSNO, which is indicated by
the increased brake thermal efciency for the same load. The heat
release pattern is much similar to that of diesel operation. The
mixing controlled phase is clear and well distinguished in the
combustion of all test fuels. The peak heat release rates for CMPRO
10 and CMPRO 20 blends are 63.29 J/deg CA and 73.71 J/deg CA,
respectively (not shown in Figure). With the increase of camphor
oil in the blend it is observed that the crank angle of peak heat
release rate is advanced.
6.3.2. Ignition delay
Ignition delay is dened as the time duration between fuel
injection and the start of combustion determined from heat release
analysis (5% of heat release). Variation of the ignition delay with
load for all fuels is shown in Fig. 12. The magnitude of ignition delay
increases with decrease of camphor oil in the blend. At peak load
output, the neat CSNO has highest ignition delay of 12 deg CA. The
heavier nature of the oil slows down the evaporation process.
Hence the ignition delay is longest for CSNO. For camphor oil blends
CMPRO 10, CMPRO 20 and CMPRO 30, the ignition delay is 11 deg
CA, 9 deg CA and 8 deg CA, respectively at the same operating point.
The diesel has an ignition delay of 8 deg CA. As the camphor oil has
better fuel and ignitable properties, the blends have reduced ignition delay.
6.3.3. Peak pressure developed
The peak pressure developed at full load for the fuels used is
shown in Fig. 13. The magnitude of peak pressure depends upon the

Fig. 11. Heat release rates at full load.

Fig. 12. Variation of ignition delay with load.

Fig. 13. Peak pressure developed.

amount of fuel evaporated during ignition delay period which is

a characteristic of the fuel. Generally the viscosity plays a signicant role in the amount of fuel evaporated. The peak pressure
developed for CSNO is 6.102 MPa whereas it is 7.564 MPa for
CMPRO 30 blend. It is, 7.784 MPa for diesel, highest among all the
fuels that are used.

Fig. 14. Variation of maximum rate of pressure rise with load.

G. Kasiraman et al. / Energy 47 (2012) 116e124

123

CA at full load whereas it is 48 CA for diesel fuel operation. The

combustion rate of CSNO improves by blending CMPR Oil due to
better atomization and faster evaporation leading to improved
combustion. The combustion duration of the CMPRO 30 blend is 52
deg CA which is closer to diesel operation.
7. Comparative performance study of diesel, CSNO and
CMPRO 30 blend at peak load
Table 4 compares the performance of neat cashew nut shell oil,
camphor 30 blend and diesel fuel in the engine operation. It is
observed that the performance, combustion and emission rates of
CSNO are inferior as compared to diesel operation. This is due to
high viscosity and low volatility of CSNO resulting in poor atomization and vaporization. This process leads to poor combustion.
However by blending 30% camphor oil with CSNO, the combustion
improves as a result of better fuel properties of the blends such as
low viscosity. Performance, emission and combustion characteristics of camphor 30 blend is on par with standard diesel engine.

Fig. 15. Variation of combustion duration with load.

6.3.4. Maximum rate of pressure rise

Fig. 14 shows the variation of maximum rate of pressure rise for
all test fuels. Maximum rate of pressure increases by blending
CMPR Oil with straight CSNO. This is due to higher heat release rate
of the blends which results because of better atomization and
mixing. At peak output, CSNO operation has a maximum rate of
pressure rise of 1.04 MPa/deg CA. The maximum rate of pressure
rise approaches closer to diesel operation with a value of 1.138 MPa/
deg CA for a blend of CMPRO 30. In a compression ignition engine,
the rate of pressure rise depends up on the combustion rate in the
initial stages, which in turn is inuenced by the amount of fuel
taking part in the uncontrolled combustion. The uncontrolled or
premixed combustion phase is inuenced by the delay period and
the mixture preparation during the delay period.
6.3.5. Combustion duration
The combustion duration which is the time taken from 5% heat
release to 95% heat release measured in terms of crank travel. Its
variation for the tested fuels is shown in Fig. 15. The neat CSNO
burns longer than all other fuels and combustion duration is 75 deg

Table 4
Comparison of results.
Parameters

Brake thermal
efciency (%)
Brake specic
energy
consumption (MJ/kg)
Volumetric efciency (%)
Heat release rate (J/deg CA)
Ignition delay (deg CA)
Max. rate of pressure rise
(bar/deg CA)
Combustion duration
(deg CA)
Max. pressure
developed (MPa)
HC emission (ppm)
CO emission (%)
NO emission (ppm)
Smoke emission (BSU)
Exhaust gas temperature
(Kelvin)

Diesel

CSNO

CMPRO 30

Percentage
change
compared
to CSNO

30.14

23.1

29.1

26[

11.9

15.72

12.9

18Y

81.8
79.9
7
11.52

76.9
62.67
12
10.4

80
79.64
8
11.38

4[
27[
33Y
9[

48

75

52

31Y

7.784
130
0.27
1068
3.64
665

[ increase in value, Y decrease in value.

6.102
143
0.38
983
4.22
716

7.564
132
0.3
1040
3.91
686

24[
8Y
21Y
6[
7Y
4Y

8. Conclusions
A single cylinder compression ignition engine was operated
successfully using neat Cashew nut shell oil (CSNO), and blends of
CSNO with 10, 20 and 30 percent camphor oil (CMPRO 10, CMPRO
20 and CMPRO 30, respectively). Fuel consumption, air consumption brake power output, crank angleecylinder pressure data and
emissions such as CO, HC, NO and smoke were measured at various
loads. The performance and combustion characteristics were
calculated. The performance, emission and combustion characteristics of the engine using these fuels are compared with the diesel
fuel operation at maximum power output. Based on the experimental results the following conclusions are drawn.
The blending of camphor oil signicantly improves the performance of cashew nut shell oil as fuel in a DI diesel engine. This is
mainly due to lower viscosity of camphor oil and its better ignition
properties. Improved atomization vaporization and mixing are
obtained with camphor oil addition resulting in complete
combustion.
The cashew nut shell oil 70% and camphor oil 30% blend (CMPRO
30) performs closer to diesel with respect to performance, emission
and combustion characteristics. The brake thermal efciency of
CMPRO 30 blend is 29.1% at peak load compared to diesel brake
thermal efciency of 30.14% whereas it is 23.1% for neat CSNO.
At peak load the NO emissions of CMPRO 30 blend, diesel fuel
and neat CSNO are 1040 ppm, 1068 ppm and 983 ppm, respectively.
The smoke emissions are higher for neat CSNO with a value of
4.22 BSU. For CMPRO 30 blend it is 3.91 BSU whereas it is 3.64 BSU
for diesel. The peak pressure, maximum rate of pressure rise,
ignition delay, combustion duration and heat release rates of
CMPRO 30 blend and diesel fuel are comparable.
The effect of long term usage of CSNO and CMPRO needs to be
studied to ascertain the engine deposits.
On the whole it is concluded that the performance of neat CSNO
can be improved signicantly by blending camphor oil and CMPRO
30 blend can be used as a substitute for diesel.
References
[1] Senthil Kumar M, Ramesh A, Nagalingam B. A comparison of the different
methods of using jatropha oil as fuel in a compression ignition engine.
Transactions of ASME, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power
2010;132:1e10.
[2] Bajpai S, Sahoo PK, Das LM. Feasibility of blending karanja vegetable oil in
petro-diesel and utilization in a direct injection diesel engine. Fuel 2009;88:
705e11.

124

G. Kasiraman et al. / Energy 47 (2012) 116e124

[3] Edwin Geo V, Nagarajan G, Nagalingam B. Studies on improving the performance of rubber seed oil fuel for diesel engine with DEE port injection. Fuel
2010;89:3559e67.
[4] Leenus Jesu Martin M, Prithviraj D, Velappan KC. Performance and emission
characteristics of a CI engine fueled with esteried cottonseed oil. SAE Paper
no. 2005-26-355; 2005.
[5] Nazar J, Ramesh A, Nagalingam B. Investigation on the use of coconut oil and
its biodiesel in a direct injection diesel engine. SAE Paper no. 2006-28-0005;
2006.
[6] Hazar Hanbey, Aydin Huseyin. Performance and emission evaluation of a CI
engine fueled with preheated raw rapeseed oil (RRO)ediesel blends. Applied
Energy 2010;87:786e90.
[7] Rakopoulos CD, Antonopoulao KA, Rakopoulos DC. Experimental heat release
analysis and emissions of a HSDI diesel engine fueled with ethanolediesel fuel
blends. Energy 2007;32:1791e808.
[8] Rakopoulos DC, Rakopoulos CD, Giakoumis EG, Dimaratos AM. Characteristics
of performance and emissions in high speed direct injection diesel engine
fueled with diethyl ether/diesel fuel blends. Energy 2012;43:214e24.
[9] Karabektas M, Hosoz M. Performance and emission characteristics of a diesel
engine using isobutanolediesel fuel blends. Renewable Energy 2009;34(6):
1554e9.
[10] Purushothaman K, Nagarajan G. Performance, emission and combustion
characteristics of a compression ignition engine operating on neat orange oil.
Renewable Energy 2009;34:242e5.
[11] Rakopoulos CD, Dimaratos AM, Giakoumis EG, Rakopoulos DC. Investigating
the emissions during acceleration of a turbocharged diesel engine operating
with bio-diesel or n-butanol diesel fuel blends. Energy 2010;35:5173e84.

[12] Arpa O, Yumrutas R, Alma MH. Effects of turpentine and gasoline-like fuel
obtained from waste lubrication oil on engine performance and exhaust
emission. Energy 2010;35:3603e13.
[13] Mani M, Nagarajan G, Sampath S. Characterisation and effect of using waste plastic
oil and diesel fuel blends in a compression ignition engine. Energy 2011;36:212e9.
[14] Tsolakis A, Megaritis A, Wyszynski ML, Theinnoi K. Engine performance and
emissions of a diesel engine operating on diesel-RME (rapeseed methyl ester)
blends with EGR (Exhaust gas recirculation). Energy 2007;32:2072e80.
[15] Saravanan S, Nagarajan G, Lakshmi Narayana Rao G, Sampath S. Combustion
characteristics of a stationary diesel engine fuelled with a blend of crude rice
bran oil methyl ester and diesel. Energy 2010;35:94e100.
[16] Mohibbe Azam M, Waris Amtul, Nahar NM. Prospects and potential of fatty
acid methyl esters of some non-traditional seed oils for use as biodiesel in
India. Biomass and Bioenergy 2005;29:293e302.
[17] Mallikappa DN, Reddy Rana Pratap, Murthy Ch SN. Performance and emission
characteristics of double cylinder CI engine operated with cardanol bio fuel
blends. Renewable Energy 2012;38:150e4.
[18] Velmurugan A, Loganathan M. Performance and emission characteristics of
stationary CI engine with cardanol bio fuel blends. International Journal of
Scientic & Engineering Research 2011;2(4):1e6.
[19] Patel Rajesh N, Bandyopadhyay Santanu, Ganesh Anuradda. Extraction of
cashew (Anacardium occidentale) nut shell liquid using supercritical carbon
dioxide. Bioresource Technology 2006;97:847e53.
[20] Ferguson Colin R. Internal combustion engines, applied thermosciences. 1st
ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1985.
[21] Holman JP. Experimental techniques for engineers. 7th ed. New Delhi: Tata
McGraw Hill; 2004.